In the light of this part of the resurrection story it is pertinent to consider whether the following words were written regarding Daniel or concerning Christ:

Daniel 6

v. 3.	An excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.
v. 4.	Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.
v. 10.	He kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God.
v. 14.	Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.
v. l 6.	They brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions.
v. 17.	And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that there might be no change of purpose concerning Daniel.
v. 22.	My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lion’s mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. Also “a vision” of angels (Lk. 24:23) = Dan. 9:21; 10:1,7,8,16 only.
v. 23.	So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.
v. 24.	And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, and their children, and their wives.
v. 26.	I make a decree, that in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be unto the end.
v. 27.	He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth.
v.28.	So this Daniel prospered.

It is hardly possible to read the Fourth Gospel without being impressed with the symbolic character of its language. This is true, of course, of every book in the Bible to a greater or less extent. But the variety and subtlety of John’s use of symbolic phraseology is in a class to itself. And it comes in all shapes and sizes as this survey will attempt to show.

Such expressions as “the Light shineth in darkness” (1:5), “living water” (4:10,14), and “I have meat to eat that ye know not of” (4:32), “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (11:9) – this in response to a warning about the danger of arrest. All such phrases embody ideas that the reader feels he can take in his stride, for the basic notions seem to be obvious. It is only after long experience that suspicions arise that there is more profundity here than was at first suspected. The last two examples just cited (both from John 4) should go some way towards persuading the alert reader that there is a fair degree of important allegory in the rest of this detailed account of Christ’s encounter with the women of Samaria. In chapter 26, an attempt has been made to bring out some of the underlying meanings.

There are plenty of instances of this kind of thing right through this Gospel.

OT Allusion

More than this, it soon becomes obvious that many of these examples of symbolic language have their roots in the Old Testament; whereas Matthew likes to gear up his Lord’s work to explicit citation of the Old Testament, John delights in reporting how his Master made copious passing allusion to a wide variety of Scriptures – a practice which he himself indulges in to a quite remarkable extent.

“Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile…angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (Jn.l:47,51).

“Bread from heaven” (Jn.6:41), but how many pick up also the allusions (in 6:27) to uncorrupting manna in a golden pot (Ex.16:33)?

“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness…” (Jn.3:14).

It was according to Old Testament prophecy (Ps.22:18) that Roman soldiers were unwilling to rend the robe of Jesus (a priestly garment – chiton, Heb: ch’toneth), this in marked contrast with the robe of Caiaphas, rent by its owner — an impressive dramatic irony!

“Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (1:29) immediately sends any Bible-familiar mind enquiring restlessly whether this is an allusion to the daily burnt-offering, to the Passover Lamb, or to Isaiah’s peerless prophecy.

Old Testament links of this kind are relatively easy to pick up. But how many more there are of a more subtle character. For instance:

When the risen Lord was first seen by Mary Magdalene, there in a Garden, she — a woman, alone — called him first the Gardener, and then teacher (John 20:15,16). What a contrast, in this last detail with the woman in the first garden who set herself to teach her gardener husband, who was her lord!

Just before that, Mary had seen in the empty tomb, two angels sitting one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. How like cherubim in the Holy of Holies guarding a blood-anointed mercy seat!

It was this Mary also who anointed the head and feet of Jesus, as though he were a Passover Lamb (“his head with his legs;” Ex. 1 2:9). And this was done six days before the Passover (Jn. 1 2:1), on the tenth day of Nisan (Ex. 1 2:3). Jesus understood all this instantaneously, even though so many of his disciples do not: “Against the day of my burying hath she kept this (commandment)” (12:7). And the trial and condemnation of Jesus took place on “the Preparation” (19:14). Why did John not write “the day before the Sabbath”? Did he want to remind his readers that that day, all Jewry were preparing their Passover lamb?

On the night of his arrest and humiliation, Jesus went forth from Jerusalem over the brook Kidron (1 8:1). Why this unusual geographical detail, except to remind the reader (if he wants to be reminded) of how, a thousand years earlier, David must needs leave his holy city, despised and rejected (2 Sam. 15:23; see fuller details in chapter 214).

Was it important that John should record that the temple was “forty and six years in building”? No, not necessary. But how effective a reminder to discerning readers that it had needed forty years in the wilderness followed by six years of conquest before a Joshua-Jesus had established c House of God in the Land of Promise.

Again, why does John mention, in chapter 2, that Jesus “went down” to Capernaum (2:12), and then says nothing about Jesus in Capernaum until four chapters and two years later (6:59)? But an Old Testament-trained mind catches there the echo of the ancient idiom which describes a manifestation of God among His people, as God “going down” (Gen. 11:5,7; Ex. 19:18,20). The words are so appropriate to the Lord’s first public act of authority — the cleansing of the temple (2:11 uses the word “manifested”).

John 11:49,50 has a mysterious passage about Caiaphas making pronouncement that “one man must die for the people, and the whole nation perish not… Caiaphas prophesied, being high priest that year.” The last phrase appears to be a sublime irrelevancy, until it is observed that only once a year did the high priest “prophesy”, that is, declare the will of God to the people; and that was when he cast the divine lot on the Day of Atonement to decide which goat should die as a sin-offering for God’s people; “and not for that nation only”, but for the Gentiles also, as Lev. 16:29 pointedly declares. Thus only very indirectly does John intimate that he is harnessing Old Testament symbolism in his message concerning the death of his Lord.

Double Meanings

What is surely the most remarkable expression of the apostle John’s symbolic mind is his frequent inclusion in his narrative of small, apparently unimportant, factual details which, when the record is read just as a bald narrative, seem to add little or nothing to the religious value of this Gospel. It is the easiest thing in the world to throw together a number of examples of this kind of thing:

“Judas went out (from the Last Supper), and it was night” (1 3:30). But of course it was night. Was it not a supper that was in progress? Yet who has not sensed the double meaning here —of the darkness of night descending on the soul of Judas as he left the fellowship of the Light of the World?

Again, “these things spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple” (8:20). Does that mention of the treasury add anything at all to this record? Is this detail there to suggest the divine value of what the people were hearing? In the light of other examples this seems distinctly possible: The overturning of money tables during the cleansing of the temple was not only a protest against such mercenary activities in God’s House, but also an open demonstration of the worthlessness of the practices and teaching dispensed by these ‘holy’ men; and the scourge of small cords in Jesus’ hand, useless as a weapon, told them that they must choose between leaving the House of God and staying to endure the scourge of the disciples he would wield against them.

On a later occasion “Jesus walked in Solomon s porch.” Here was the Son of God dispensing the wisdom of Solomon. “It was the feast of dedication, and it was winter,” (Jn. 10:22,23). He was calling to men to dedicate their loyalty to himself, but the response given him was as frigid as the weather.

When Mary anointed her Lord at the meal-table, “the house was filled with the odour of the ointment’ (1 2:3). Truly a fragrant detail to include in the story. But there is more to it than this. The parallel records in Matthew and Mark give the Master’s pronouncement that “wheresoever the gospel is preached, this that this woman hath done shall be told for a memorial of her” (Mt. 26: 1 3). And so it has been. The House of God has been Oiled with the aroma of that ointment from that day to this.

The gospels tell of only one occasion when Jesus went to Gethsemane. Bur i^f is John who odds: “Jesus at oft-times resorted tfrfher” (1 8:2), thus so delicately implying that those visits to Jerusalem involved many Gethsemane experiences!

How trenchantly John mentions that Nicodemus came to Jesus “by night”, fearing lest he be thought sympathetic to the teaching of the Nazarene: But then, when Jesus was only a corpse waiting to be thrown out into Gehenna, Nicodemus came boldly into the open as an avowed disciple. And John briefly but warmly fells the story for wherever the gospel is preached this story also must be told for a memorial of him.

One of the most pleasing of all the symbolic vouches in John’s narrative is the careful detail about the two resurrections in this gospel. At the Lord’s command Lazarus “came forth bound hand and foot with grave clothes” (11:44). By contrast, Peter and John entering the Lord’s sepulchere found the wrappings apparently undisturbed, but without a body; yet the napkin that was about his head “not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together (as though folded away) in a place by itself.”

Thus is represented the great resurrection truth: “Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming: (1Cor 15:23) – an assigned interval between the resurrection of Christ the Head and the resurrection of his Body. Also, whereas Lazarus , the Lord’s disciple emerges from the tomb with all the trappings of mortality about him, in Christ ‘s experience these are left behind – the disciple must needs be mortal in that Day, until he receives from his Judge and Lord the blessing of Life, but not so Christ.

John surely does not need to bid is reader set alongside these pregnant details that which Luke twice mentions about Jesus when he emerged from the womb, that Mary “wrapped him in swaddling clothes” (Lk. 2:7, 12). In what more sensitive way could a gospel writer hint at the true humanity of the Son of God.

Jew-Gentile Problems

It has to be remembered that all the time when John was writing, the crucial questions agitating the growing church of Christ were two related problems concerning the Gentiles. Was the gospel to be preached to them as well as to Jews? and if so, what sort of fellowship was to exist between the two communities? The early brethren were never far away from these headaches. Matthew had his own special way of setting out his Lord’s will concerning these worries (see chapter 171). John says the same (of course!), but in his own characteristic fashion. He inserts such incidental details as these:

“Jesus left (abandoned) Judaea, and went into Galilee (of the Gentiles). And he must needs go through Samaria.” (4:3,4). But he did not need to go through Samaria; there was another road, much more used by the Jews. But there was a spiritual necessity to take both himself and his message (and his disciples) to the Samaritans, as the rest of the chapter shows in much detail.

It was in Cana of Galilee where he made the water into wine (4:46).

When Jews in Jerusalem rejected him, taking up stones to stone him for his “blasphemy’, he “hid himself, and went out of the temple… and so passed by (by-passed them)” (8:59).

After a similar rough rejection in Jerusalem Jesus “went away again beyond Jordan… and many resorted unto him” (10:40,41).

Beginning to be desperately worried, “the Pharisees said among themselves . . the World is gone after him” (12:19). So Caiaphas was not the only prophet.

The same passage now continues more explicitly: “Certain Greeks (not Grecian Jews) … came to Philip,. Sir. we would see Jesus” This development gave the Lord great satisfaction, a real refreshment of spirit: “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified” (12:20-24) John doesn’t trouble to say that Jesus acceded to their request; but of course he did.

There is a specially eloquent passage in John 11, after the hostility of the rulers crystallized out into vicious scheming to destroy him: “Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness into a city called Ephraim (which means Double Fruitfulness) and there continued with his disciples (11:54). Can if be doubted that here is a neat symbolic prophecy of Jewish rancour to be meted out to the early church and to the encouraging reception given to the Gospel in the wilderness of the Gentiles (e.g. Acts 13:46)?

When Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane, Peter’s stout effort to defend his Master resulted in Malchus, the high priest’s servant, losing his right ear. This man was there as the representative of the high priest who had been consecrated by being touched on his right ear, with the holy oil. Then would not this episode be seen as a de-consecrating of Caiaphas, the end of his priestly office? The same thing was foreshadowed in the Lord’s trial when Caiaphas rent his own robe. Of course he merely intended a melodramatic gesture; but others saw more meaning in it than that! and also in the later episode when, at the crucifixion, the robe of Jesus was not rent. The Greek word there means ‘a priestly robe.’ So this unrent robe expresses a precious truth to those who know Jesus as their High Priest.

The recurrence of narrative features such as these can hardly be written off as coincidence.

Now the long detailed account of Christ’s encounter with the woman of Samaria can be readily seen as a directive to the early church in Jerusalem not to disdain the hated Samaritans but to make an earnest effort to gather them into the fold of the gospel. Not only does the main theme of John 4 point such a lesson but also a variety of details in that chapter now light up with double meaning. The trouble is that any attempt to bring out, by words of explanation, the subtle flavour of some of these, can lead only to a flat rather insipid interpretation of such meaningful phrases. One needs the apostle’s symbolic spectacles, and a perceptive insight to malch that of this beloved disciple.

Jesus’ begging for a drink (4:7) suggests right away the Lord’s need for spiritual refreshment springing from a ready response in these Samaritans to his message of truth (cp. also v.32)

“How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me…?” Was not the barrier between Jew and Samaritan quite insuperable? Jesus did not answer this expression of perplexity, for the explanation lay within his own soul and its yearning to save these people from their own religious ignorance. Was he not sitting there by the well of Jacob to whom God had made a great Promise that “in thy seed shall all families of the earth (the Land?) be blessed” (Gen. 28:14)?

When Jesus suggested that she share his “living water”, and yet he had no pitcher, she saw at once that the symbolic had become more important that the literal: “Thou art not greater, art thou, than our father Jacob…?” She clung in faith to her descent from the great patriarch. Was not this well God’s token of the promise given to Jacob? He drank of it, and his children (the Jews), and his cattle (we Samaritans are at least on that level).

All the time the conversation was on this discerning level. She really wanted this “living water,” and was prepared to let go dependence on Jacob’s well and Jacob’s Promise, for “living water” promised fulfilment. She even disallowed her five husbands (the Mosaic books which Samaritans pinned their faith in), and also her current enthusiasm for one who was no husband at all (but only a contemporary bogus Messiah). Instead she now recognized this stranger as the Prophet like unto Moses.

Then, would this new loyalty mean abandoning Gerizim for Jerusalem? Not so! Jesus offered a Faith superior to anything Samaritan or Jew could rejoice in — a religion independent of outward forms but centring on the life of the spirit, a faith which did not need to cling to ancient types and shadows but one which saw their solid Truth in a God-given Man.

All these things (John saw with his unique faculty of spiritual insight) would have a Samaritan realisation in the message now so subtly spoken to this woman.

The rest of the Sychar story became a prophetic and symbolic extension. She left her waterpot and her attachment to Jacob’s well and with an enthusiasm and assurance which the literal story hardly warrants, she bade her fellow-Samaritans believe. And they did, first believing her word and then much more emphatically believing Jesus after he had slept and risen again. But Jesus did not stay there. He had other work to do. So he left this mission to be completed later on by his disciples. Acts 8 tells how they did it.

Further examples

It should not be thought that the foregoing assemblage of examples of symbolism in John exhausts all the possibilities. Here is brief mention of more passages worth attention from this point of view:

Chapter 7, with its long account of one of Christ’s encounters with his adversaries has a remarkable series of similarities with the antagonism and danger that Paul ran into in Jerusalem (Acts 21,22).

The brief mention of a loss of many Jewish disciples and of a secret apostolic defection (6:59,60,64-66) can similarly be read as an ominous prophecy of the problem created in the first century by Judaist unbelief within the fellowship of the early church, (“Acts” H.A.W Appendix 3).

The difference in appreciation of the sepulchre experience by John and Peter (20:4) has a meaning beyond the superficial fact (and so also, very markedly, in the diverse understanding in 12:28-30). Also, there is further significance in tife use of a most expressive word which describes how apostles and then Mary Magdalene and also angels stooped down to peer into the tomb (20:5,11; 1 Pet. 1:12).

In chapter 185 the record of the washing of the disciples’ feet (Jn. 13) has been shown to have lovely symbolic overtones concerning the new priesthood to which the apostles were about to be appointed. And close to this in idea is the private inquiry made to Jesus about the guilty apostle, a question put by one who was in the bosom of Jesus. The links here with high-priestly judgement of guilt or innocence by means of Urim and Thummim are very striking (see “Samuel, Saul, David” Appendix 1).

There is double meaning also about the Lord’s words: “Of them whom thou gavest me I have lost none” (17:1 2; 18:8,9).

The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, certainly a dress-rehearsal of the Second Coming, was not understood by the disciples (12:16). Is there here an ominous anticipation of reprehensible incomprehension by disciples in the Day when their Lord comes into his Holy City, their expectations as to when and how being all awry?

Some place names and personal names seem to be used with specific allusion to their meaning. “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” is surely intended to steer the reader back to Isaiah ] 1:1 and its message about the Branch, the Messianic King, for Nazareth means the town of the Branch (note Jn. 7:52 also). Jesus himself made pointed play on the names Cephas and Peter. And 1 9:12 seems to ask the reader to note the echo in the name “Pilate” of a Hebrew word meaning “escape”.

Bethabara (Jn. 1:28), Salim (Jn. 3:23), and Sychar (Jn. 4:5) are all worth looking at from this angle.

More abundant Material

Two of the obvious facets of the symbolism in John’s Gospel, which together make up a very considerable element in this record of Christ’s acts and teaching are:

1. the parables, so different from those in the Synoptic Gospels; e.g. the True Vine, the Good Shepherd, ”my Flesh and my Blood;”
2. the sequence of miracles described here; they are never called miracles, but always signs.

In the first of these two groups if would be absurd to claim that these allegories were intended to make only one main point. In these, every statement is of value. There is not one which does not have a special meaning.

And so also with the other group. In the relevant chapters in this volume attempts have been made, not as fully as they might have been, to treat each separate sign as an acted parable. In some the meaningful quality of each separate detail stands out clearly. In two or three instances such a point-by-point interpretation does not come quite so readily. But that may be due to the reader’s inadequacy rather than to a difference in character, in any case the intensely symbolic quality of these miracles is not disputed. But readers would do well not to be fobbed off with the suggestion of “one main idea” to be discerned in this sign or that. For example, it is not sufficient to sum up the Feeding of the Multitude with “Jesus is the Bread of Life”, nor will it do merely to describe the Bethesda healing as “a re-interpretation of the Sabbath Law”, nor to sum up that powerful story about the man born blind with such a phrase as “Jesus the Light of the World”. An acted parable like that about Jesus at Jacob’s well should surely coax students to further effort and, please God, to fuller insight.

It was somewhere about mid-afternoon when the risen Jesus next manifested himself to any of his followers — that is, unless the appearance to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5) came in before this. Perhaps there is something of special significance in the fact that the Lord was seen that day first by a woman – Mary — and then by two disciples neither of whom was an apostle! One is reminded of how the sons of Zebedee sought a promise of chief places in Christ’s kingdom, but the one whom Jesus chose to “set by him” was a little child (Luke 9:47).

What two disciples?

One of the two walking to Emmaus was named Cleopas. If this is the Clopas whose wife Mary was not only at the crucifixion (John 19:25) but who also visited the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene and the others, then it may be inferred that his companion was neither his wife nor his son, the apostle James (James the less, the son of Alphaeus). Mary, the wife of Clopas, is ruled out by the reference to “certain of our company which were early at the sepulchre” (Luke 24.92; The words imply no personal participation in that sublime experience of seeing angels at the empty tomb. And James, son of Alnhaeus, is similarly eliminated bv the fact that these two, returning from Emmaus to Jerusalem, found “the eleven gathered together” and Judas Iscariot for certain would not be one of that number. (For some of the details in this paragraph, see ch. 42.)

Before proceeding with the details of the story it may be useful to consider two alternative suggestions about the identity of the second disciple.

Is this unique record , Luke’s “signature” to his gospel, like Mark’s mention of the young man with the linen wrapping (14:51) , and Matthew’s details of the feast at his house (9:9ff) and John s references to “the disciple Jesus loved. (13:23; 21:7)

Attractive as this idea might be, it is surely vetoed by Luke 1:2 – Luke could not write out of continuous personal experience, but had to depend on those who were ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word.”

It has also been eloquently argued that Cleopas colleague was Peter. This is too much to let go – for these reasons:

1. It depends on a reading in the Greek text which is found in one manuscript only (Codex D), out of hundreds. A theory which picks and chooses the evidence in this way is on a wrong foundation from the start.
2. If Peter were one of the Emmaus two, why should his name be so pointedly excluded?
3. Returning from Emmaus, the two “found the eleven gathered together.” If Peter was one of the two, then the “eleven” must have included Judas Iscariot! is that likely, or even possible?
4. If indeed they were Cleopas and Peter who said to the eleven: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon,” isn’t that a strange way of telling their experience? Wouldn’t they say: “He hath appeared to us”? Wouldn’t Cleopas think it only right that Peter, chief apostle, should take the lead on this highly important occasion?

The narrative seems to imply that this Cleopas and his companion had their home at Emmaus: “the village, whither they went… Abide with us . . . he went in to tarry with them… as he sat at meat with them…”

Yet since the most probable assumption is that these two were man and wife, and all the apostles (except Judas?) were Galileans (Acts 2:7), it seems most likely that this Cleopas is not to be identified with any other individual of similar name mentioned in the gospels.

Discussion, uncertainty

They had just nice time to reach their destination before sun-down. There was no prospect of boredom as they walked. All the vivid soul-searing sights and experiences of Passover day were still racing through their minds and were still being discussed from every angle even though they had already talked them over all through the Sabbath to the point of weariness and tears. And now, on top of all this nerve-jangling experience, there had come not only the exciting report that the Lord’s tomb had been found empty but also the altogether incredible story that angelic messengers declared their Jesus to be alive again.

What were they to make of it all? Hopes sprang into flame, flickered momentarily, and died. The dependability of the women bringing the news was considered from every angle. Other possible explanations of their strange convictions were coined one otter another. But, alas, one thing was deai enouah — dead men do not come to life again. Even miracies of this sort which Jesus himself had been credited with, somehow began to look less convincing now. Bewilderment reigned in the minds of both — but there was no agreement.

Luke uses three very expressive words about their discussion. One describes the vague murmur of a crowd, thus indicating that their talk never ceased, and maybe that they both talked at once. Another word suggests argument, disputation, whilst a third conveys a vivid impression of assertions and objections thrown backwards and forwards between the two. But blanketing all the vigour of their talk was o dejection of spirit which declared itself in every look and every tone of voice.

An unrecognised stranger

They were so wrapped up in their talk and their sorrow that very soon after leaving Jerusalem, the approach of a stranger along a converging path was not noticed until he invited himself into their confidence. From anyone else the action might have been received as an impertinence, and rebuffed as such, but there was something so sympathetic and helpful about the demeanour of this stranger that, when they had got over their surprise, they were only too glad to tell him everything.

Why was it that Jesus went unrecognized? Even if it be conceded that the risen Master, experiencing all the power and vigour of immortality, was now much changed from the utterly worn-out Jesus they had known in the week before Passover, they must surely have noted much resemblance. And why did they not recognize his voice? The same problem arises regarding the lake-side appearance of Jesus to the seven disciples who were granted a miraculous catch of fish (Jn. 21:4).

Mark explains: “He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.” But what do the words “another form” really signify? If there was a distinct difference in personal appearance, there must also have been a change of voice. Or were the minds of these two so completely shut to the possibility of their Lord rising again that they were altogether blind and deaf to that which was evident enough?

Instead of the glad amazement of recognition, these two disciples showed a different surprise response to the question: “What words are these ye exchange?”, they first stopped dead in their tracks: “They stood still, looking sad” (RV). Then- ‘You must surely be the most solitary man lodging in Jerusalem, this Passover, not to know what we are talking about!’ The words imply that that week-end Jews in Jerusalem had talked about nothing else but the crucifixion of Jesus and the remarkable events associated with it.

Hope and despair

To their utter astonishment, their new friend — for he already seemed like that — apparently knew nothing of it. Yet the question: “What things?”, did not involve even a white lie! He allowed them to assume his ignorance.

Now with the eagerness which responds to kindly sympathy they told him. First one then the other took up the story. Time and again they interrupted each other in their excited anxiety that the story — the whole story, with all its overtones — should be fully and properly told. It needs no imagination to trace in this section of the record the ports of *he narrative supplied by the down-hearted Cleopas and the interruptions of his more hopeful wife

“Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in word and in deed before God and all the people.” Any confidence in Jesus as their Messiah was now gone. Prophet like unto Moses, no doubt — “mighty in word and in deed” was to be Stephen’s description of Moses (Acts 7:22) – but like Moses his work appeared to have stopped short of giving Israel the kingdom

“But” interrupted the other, “we trusted that it was he which should have redeemed Israel” from the thraldom of Rome. Yet how could he be the Messiah? He was dead and buried, and today the third day since these sickening disappointments broke their spirits. The third day! In the journey up to Jerusalem, Jesus had more than once spoken strangely about what should transpire on the third day. It was a parable, doubtless. How often they had misunderstood the figures of speech he used! Anyway, the third day was now come and almost gone, and they were without help or comfort to their souls

But again there came the more hopeful interruption: “How can you say that? Did not some of the women – disciples – go to his sepulchre early this morning, and then return with the story that angels had told them he was risen again? So perhaps even now they might hope!

“But him they saw not,” came the devastating matter-of-fact rejoinder. Their dejection was not to be dispelled bv absurd stories about angelic appearances, but only by the sight of Jesus himself — that was what their crushed spirits needed.

At last their story was told. It was, in a way, a relief to them to get it all said, yet the telling of it only-served to underscore in their minds the final hopelessness of their cause. What a contrast with the eager expectations created by their Master’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem and by his vigorous cleansing of the Temple courts only a week ago .

“Fools, and slow of heart!”

As their minds dwelt longingly on what might have been, they were brought up short by the stranger’s utterly unexpected reaction *o their story Using perhaps the very reproach which Mary Magdalene and the others had used when their stony was not received, he rounded on them- “O fools and slow of heart to believe! On the basis of all that the prophets have spoken ought not the Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?’ (The form of the Greek expression here suggests a possible re-punctuation. If not this, then the idea is: “slow of heart to rest your faith on all that the prophets have spoken.”)

They stared in amazement. This new-found friend somehow blended a note of sharp authority with his kindliness. And how came it that he had more definite ground for confidence than they had?

They soon found his confidence came from the Scriptures. Quickly, with a rapid allusiveness which was all that was necessary when one devout Jew-spoke to another, he took their minds to the inspired Word – to Joseph, the beloved son, rejected by his brethren, yet exalted to honour before them and before all the world; to David, first outlaw and fugitive, and then royal hero leading the nation in praise of God; to Isaiah’s peerless descriptions of a Suffering Servant of Jehovah who yet must “see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied”; the poignant phrases of Psalm 22 which they themselves had heard on the lips of their Master as he hung on the cross. Why had they been so slow to recognize this double element of suffering and glory in so many of the familiar Scriptures? And all that then Lord had endured in his rejection and death chimed in perfectly with these well-loved parts of their Bible Why had they failed to discern these things? Fools indeed!

But fools no longer. It was as though a mental block had suddenly been taken away. Instead they were all at once like men endowed with a sixth sense. It was as though a new dimension had been added to their living. With almost frantic eagerness they deluged their friend with questions. Hungrily they clamoured for more on the same theme.

Emmaus Bible Class

So in response to their pathetic gladness he began again, this time going through the Scriptures systematically, throwing a searchlight on many an ill-understood phrase and quoting passage after passage with unerring accuracy and emphasis. Often it needed only the stressing of a key phrase and they saw at once the shouting truth of a Scripture they had read a hundred times. Now and then, in response to a look of puzzlement, he settled down to expound in greater detail, linking up with that which was more familiar. Through all the five books of Moses they went. Promise, prophecy, and type all made their heart-warming contribution to a gargantuan feast of divine knowledge. The familiar stories of ancient national heroes were heard again as though for the first time — they were the saviours God had raised up to shadow forth the work of a greater Saviour. Prophets and psalms and even proverbs were combed over. Scores of hitherto unappreciated details turned to pure gold under the skilful touch of this alchemist. Sometimes it needed only the addition of a brief explanatory phrase, sometimes merely a greater stress on a specially significant word, and a Scripture which hitherto had carried only a simple surface meaning was suddenly seen to flash with hidden fire. Never was such a Bible Class. It had begun with an audience of two dispirited bewildered people who would fain believe but couldn’t. It left them eager, hopeful, re-assured.

For over two hours they walked with Jesus in The Way. Little wonder their heart burned within them as he opened to them the Scriptures (Psalm 119:130 RV), for the heart of the modern reader burns within him from the mere reading of it (if he have any imagination at all and any zeal for the Word of God. Thus the opening of their minds to the Old Testament became the best possible preparation for the opening of their eyes. And so, in a sense, it is unto this day.

One may be fairly confident that many of the seemingly unusual (or even unnatural) applications of the Scriptures in the speeches and writings of the Apostles had their roots in that prototype of all Bible Classes. It was in all the Scriptures that Jesus expounded the things concerning himself. And long before he was done, those two disciples would be echoing his reproach of themselves, but with less tolerance or patience: “Fools, fools, fools!”

All too soon they were at their journey’s end. These were the shortest miles they had ever walked. The two paused within sight of their own home whilst their Friend spoke of going further. But neither of the disciples would have it so. At all cost they must retain the company and help of this unknown stranger who could so magically banish their doubts and help them see in Scripture the fullness of God’s Purpose with their Jesus.

So they pressed their humble and not altogether unselfish hospitality upon him with an insistence not to be gainsaid. The sun was already on the horizon, the ways were dangerous by night, the miles already covered must have left him in need of rest — yet how they were hoping secretly that he would not be too tired to talk yet more Bible truth with them by lamplight.

Another ‘Breaking of Bread’

In days to come these two would never cease from gratified satisfaction that they had overborne the expressed intention of their Friend to go on beyond Emmaus. Inevitably they would match this experience with that of the storm-tried disciples to whom Jesus came walking on the water and “would have passed them by,” had not they detained him by their cries. And there was also the brusque reception he had given to the Canaanitish woman desperately pleading on behalf of her stricken daughter. Yet how graciously he had blessed her when she would not be said nay.

To this day he is the same. He comes in to lodge with those who will not let him go. And it is to those who pore long and reverently over the story of his words and works that he most fully reveals himself. “He will ever have us thus restrain him with an effort and an entreaty,- or he will pass on” (Burgon; compare also Genesis 18:1 – 14 and 1 9:1-3; Judges 6:1 7, 1 8 and 13:1 5-20; Acts 16:15,40).

With as little delay as may be, a meal was prepared, but first before they sat down at table together, almost certainly an effort was made to wash the feet of their guest but he discouraged the courtesy— for a very obvious reason. When the host was about to offer thanks for the food, he found himself forestalled. The guest pulled the plate of matzoth, the unleavened Passover cakes, towards him, and himself proceeded to seek the blessing of heaven on their food. The prayer concluded, he broke off pieces from the brittle cake in his hand, and gave to each of them in turn. Then, in a flash, came recognition. Yet, as they instinctively leaned across to grasp his hand or arm, seeking to reinforce one sense with another, he was gone. (The Greek phrase is literally: “he became unmanifest”) — and thus, with every last doubt routed, conviction was turned into certainty.

Recognition

What was it that brought recognition? Four other people sat at another supper table discussing this very question, and in quick succession each propounded his own suggestion.

The first observed: “There must have been something impressive, something unique, about the way in which Jesus gave thanks at the table. It was altogether different from the rather uninspired formality that saying ‘grace’ often is with us”; and this speaker proceeded to cite the way in which the miracle of the multiplying of the loaves and fishes is referred to (John 6:23) as “the place where they did eat bread after that the Lord had given thanks.”

The next suggestion was: “Jesus, although a guest invited to share their meal, assumed the position at the head of the table as though He were the Host. Wouldn’t he immediately be recognized by this?

The third pointed to the deliberate imitation of the Last Supper — “he took bread, and blessed and brake, and gave to them.”

The fourth briefly: “They saw the marks of the nails in his hands, of course.”

Perhaps it was the accumulation of all these facts that brought conviction of the stranger’s identity. The suffering and risen Christ had been made known to them first in the Old Testament Scriptures and now in the Breaking of Bread. The one was the best of all possible preludes to the other, as of course it still is. And both are necessary now as then.

Without a moment’s hesitation or a moment’s delay these privileged two were speedily on the road back to Jerusalem, ejaculating glad self-reproaches at their own incredible blindness. Mark’s explanation on their behalf is that Jesus “appeared to them in another form” — an explanation which itself calls for explanation. Is the reader intended to understand that the Jesus of the Emmaus road bore no physical resemblance at all to the Jesus whom they had followed from Galilee? Today are we as blind as they in our mystification over this detail of the story?

Whilst there may have been differences of outlook when these two set out from Jerusalem, there was certainly none as they hurried back thither by the light of the Passover moon. And again it would be a wondrously short walk. How beautiful upon the mountains were the feet of these that published the gospel of their Lord’s resurrection. And as mile after mile was covered they would comb over yet again the marvellous prophecies concerning Messiah, which Jesus himself had opened their eyes to only an hour or two earlier.

Isaiah and the Emmaus Road.

Isaiah 35 has long been read as a prophecy of the blessings and happiness of Christ’s kingdom — and rightly so. Its vivid figures of speech, which have a surprisingly literal basis in the experience of God’s people in the reign of Hezekiah, are eloquent of the redemption which is yet to be. But when the two Emmaus disciples met their Lord again on the day of his resurrection, that amazing experience was, for them, a rich foretaste of the joys of kingdom happiness. Accordingly, the following phrases from that prophecy take on a new relevance:

v. 8.	And he shall be with them, walking in the way {see RVm), and fools shall not wander (any longer). (O fools, and slow of heart to believe…).
v. 3.	Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. (Here the Hebrew word for “confirm” sounds almost exactly like “Emmaus.” Accident?)
v. 4.	Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God will come raised up (the Hebrew word only needs re-pointing to give this reading), even your God rewarded; he will come and save you.
v. 5.	Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. (First the Lord opened their eyes and ears to the meaning of Scripture and then to recognition of his own person and voice).
v. 6.	Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.
v. l0.	And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

What a picture is this of the two disciples returning to tell their story to the rest in Jerusalem!

The future holds a yet greater fulfilment of this prophecy and of the Emmaus experience.

NOTES: Lk. 24:13-33.

13.	Behold. Lk. uses Mt’s great “surprises” ejaculation.
15.	Communed. The talk of a crowd (2 of them!) s.w. Acts 20:1 1; 24:26.
	Reasoned; Argued, disputed; s.w. Acts 6:9; 9:29
16.	Their eyes were holden. A divine control of their perception until the appropriate moment; cp. Dan. 10:7; 2 Kgs. 6: 16,17 (Num. 22:23-27,31); Jn. 20:1 4: This explains Mk. 1 6:1 2. It was because their eyes (and ears) were “held” (kroteo) that he seemed to be “in another form”. Compare the “opening” of eyes; v.31 ,45: Gen 3:7; 21:19; 2 Kgs 6:1 7.
17.	RVm: “Exchange” The word means: throw backwards and forwards.
	and are sad; s.w Ps. 43:2 (and note v.3a).
18.	Cleopas possibly from Hebrew chalaph changed, renewed, as in Is. 40:31; 41:1.
	A stranger- A Diaspora Jew? See on v.20
19.	What things? Jesus wanted their reaction to these events, and this was the only way to get it.
	Before God e.g. nis baptism and transfiguration. Like Elijah, as well as like Moses. 1 Kgs. 1 7.1.
	All the people An inditect testimony to the Lord’s nation-wide campaign
20.	Our rulers. Here our shows that they assumed this “stranger” to be a foreigner. They put the blame on the shoulders of the Jewish rulers and not on Pilate. The Gk. text links this closely with v. 19, as though implying that the Lord’s good works and his preaching were what brought about his crucifixion: the best of men treated as the worst by the self-styled best who were the worst!
21.	But we were hoping. Gk. suggests a sad irony about this contrast – the Hope of Israel brought to nought.
	Should have redeemed Israel could read “he was about to redeem…” (Gk. mello), with reference to the Triumphal Entry; 19:11,35ff.
	Beside all this. The Gk. phrase is untranslatable. Rather like a Scot saying: “But och…!”
	Today is. Gk. ago implies: the day is driving on to its close.
	Today is the third day. By itself this phrase is completely against the popular theory that our Lord was three full days and nights in the tomb.
22.	To some extent they credit what was reported by the women, and by the apostles, and by the angels, but not by the Scriptures!
23.	Saying … angels which said. A double hear-say! Could it be trusted?
	A vision of angels; words chosen to imply the experience was not real.
26.	Ought not: Was it not necessary — because the prophets had so spoken (v. 15).
	Enter surely implies entering into heaven and sharing the glory of the Father as plainly foretold in Dan. 7. This also was necessary.
27.	Expounded. In Acts 9:36; 1 Cor. 12:30, translation from an unknown language.
28.	The Gk. word means ‘a lot further’: Then, where?
29.	Constrained; cp. Gen. 19:3; Acts 16:15 s.w. and see Gen. 18:1-8
	The lateness of the hour was not their real reason.
30.	Gave. The continuous form of the verb, although giving to only two persons. But Luke uses this form of the verb so as to repeat exactly Mt. 26:26 (Lk. 22:19b).
31.	But not in the drinking of the wine. Mt. 26:29.
32.	Did not our heart burn. An emphatic form of the continuous tense. It was a non-stop excitement.
	While he talked with us. Gk: While he was speaking to us. After the opening exchanges, practically all the talking was done by Jesus.
33.	Gathered together. The word has an official or military flavour. Someone among the twelve had taken the initiative in calling the disciples together to pool experiences and sort out truth from rumour. They also had a meal together: v.41,42.

In various households in and around Jerusalem there were groups of disciples who had come to the holy city to celebrate Passover. They were in a high fever of expectation that “the kingdom of God would immediately appear.” How their hopes had been dashed! Instead of acclaiming King Jesus, they now lamented him. For them no Passover Feast of joy or triumph, but instead misery, lamentation and danger. There was no ray of hope of any kind. Is it possible that in the midst of their gloom and apprehension the words of their Lord came to mind: “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted”? Did they but know it, that comfort was at hand. But it was news of a kind they were in no fit frame of mind to receive.

The result of the early visits to the tomb of Jesus was that one group of women, who had met and spoken with angels there, had been assured by them that the empty tomb meant a risen Jesus, and had been charged with the most pleasant of all tasks, that of imparting the good news to the sad and helpless disciples. Mary had seen Jesus, touched him, talked with him. And she too was entrusted with the same exciting errand.

Disbelief

Thus these women are to be imagined going here and there about the city to all the places where disciples were known to be lodged. At each encounter their message was the same. Neither did the reception of it vary. Concerning those who heard Mary’s story Mark records: “And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed it not.”

Luke’s account goes like this: “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James (the less), and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.”

The form of the verb used by Luke implies either that the women went from group to group telling the story over and over again, or else that to the same people they had to repeat the circumstantial details time after time.

No doubt it happened both ways. The natural reaction of everyone who heard their witness would be to ply them with questions in order to fill out the story as much as possible. Strangely enough, the very fullness of detail which they were able to add – about the disposition of the grave-clothes, about the angels and their messages, and especially about the disappearance of the body — all this, which should have carried conviction by its definiteness only served to confirm those who heard it in and intransigent disbelief (Mk. 16:11,13,14,16).

Many rationalists who would airily explain away the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus think it sufficient to sweep the fact under the carpet with the blithe assumption that it was the vivid imagination of simple-minded followers, and their intense wish that they might see their leader again, which caused the delusion of a risen Jesus to crystallize out into a conviction and a dogma.

It is the vivid imagination of the rationalists which is more clearly in evidence! From this time on, the stubborn unwillingness of the disciples to believe the evidence of dependable witnesses, and even of their own senses, is repeatedly written into the record. Not that the gospel writers have gone out of their way to underscore this feature of that Easter Day There is little sign of effort in this direction. The fact is that in pulling together a concise record of some of the resurrection appearances of the Lord, none of these four writers could eliminate, even if he had wished to do so, the dogged resolute determination of the disciples to reject the most wonderful news of all. Far from being starry-eyed visionaries willing to credit any cock-and-bull story because it accorded with their inclinations, here were people of very matter-of-fact outlook. Even though they had themselves seen Jesus raise the dead and work all kinds of marvels, the resurrection of Jesus himself was not in their thinking at all, nor were they willing to let it into their thinking. Through the four records many details combine together to consolidate this picture of disciples unwilling and well-nigh incapable of believing the facts reported to them.

Consequently (so the details of the Greek text imply) each separate thing reported to them seemed to be quite obviously the delirium of a fevered mind or the babble of old women in their dotage – “and they believed them not.”

Peter at the tomb again

“Then rose Peter, and ran into the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.”

These words are usually taken to be Luke’s version of the visit made to the tomb by Peter and John when Mary first told them about finding it open. But there are several considerations which suggest that this describes another visit made by Peter alone after hearing from Mary that she had seen the Lord and talked with him:

1. The order of the record in Luke is: first, the report of the women; next, the disbelief of the apostles; then, the visit of Peter.
2. This order is repeated in the words of the two going to Emmaus: “certain women of our company … came, saying, that they had seen a vision of angels, which said he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even as the women had said.” The plural here seems to imply that not only Peter but others also (separately?) made the same investigation for themselves. Indeed, it would be very surprising if they didn’t.
3. 3 John’s record tells how Peter entered the tomb without hesitation, but these words of Luke speak of stooping to look in. Such a change of attitude at the tomb is readily accounted for if meantime a report had been received of angels sitting there
4. Peter’s separation from John is not only hinted at in the Greek text of John 20:2, 10, but is also required by Paul’s mention in 1 Corinthians 15:5 of a separate appearance of Jesus to Peter.

Very delicately, by introducing the word which the New Testament commonly uses for “resurrection, Luke hints at the re-birth of hope in Peter’s mind: “Then Peter arose, and ran …” Many years later the surge of emotion which that experience brought was still vivid in Peter’s memory as he wrote in an epistle which carries many echoes of the gospel story: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

In his latest visit to the tomb sent Peter away “marvelling in himself.” The facts had begun to make their impression on his mind. Who would wish to steal the body? And in doing so, who would be at pains to divest the body of its wrappings first of all?

Very soon Peter was to know that the Lord was risen indeed.

NOTES: Mark 16:10, 11.

10.	Told: Gk. Impf: kept on telling them.
	Those that had been with him. The Gk. seems to imply that they still believed in him, but not m his resurrection.
	As they mourned and wept. The third day, their lamentation had not ceased.
11.	When they had heard. Gk. aorist suggests an immediate disbelief.
	Seen. Gk. manifested. Does this imply a Jesus sometimes manifest and sometimes un-manifest? s.w. v.l 4; 1 Pet. 5:4; 1 Jn. 3:2
	Believed not. Perhaps there were comments about Mary Magdalene’s seven devils.

Luke 24:9-12.

10.	Other women. This plural implies at least five women in the group.
	To the apostles. The eleven have this title, but as yet no message.
11.	Seemed. Too weak a translation. The word of the women was to them quite manifestly rubbish Now contrast the use of the same word in Mk. 16:9.
	Idle tales. L & S: nonsense, humbug. For the idea, cp. Ps. 126:1 Acts 1 2:9,1 5. The Gk. implies every separate detail.
	Believed them not. Another impf. they kept on disbelieving. For ideas see Acts 12:9; Ps. 126:1.
12.	Then arose Peter- s w. 1 Pet 1:3. Christ’s resurrection was Peter’s also,
	and Peter ran, but not yet a prophet (on this, see “Acts”, H.A W, p.214).
	By themselves. This phrase seems to imply absence of the body.
	Wondering in himself. Gk. pros presents a picture of a Peter arguing the possibilities with himself.

Part 9: Chapters 209 to 234

Select a chapter:

• 207. The Prayer of Jesus [3] (John 17:20-26)
• 208. "Smite the Shepherd (Matt. 26:31, 32; Mark 14:27, 28)
• 209. The Warnings to Peter (Matt. 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:31-34; John 13:36-38)*
• 210. "He that hath no sword, let him…buy one" (Luke 22:35-38)
• 211. Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1)*
• 212. "Let this cup pass from me"
• 213. The Arrest of Jesus (Matt. 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-50; Luke 22:47-54; John 18:2-l 2)*
• 214. A Rejected David and a Rejected Jesus *
• 215. A Young Man with a Linen Garment (Mark 14:51, 52)*
• 216. Jesus before Annas (John 18:13-23)*
• 217. Peter's Denials (Matt. 26:58, 69-75; Mark 14:54, 66-72; Luke 22:56-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27)*
• 218. Sanhedrin Trial (Matt. 26:59-66; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:63-71)*
• 219. The Repentance of Judas. (Matt. 27:3-10)*
• 220. Innocent Blood (Matt. 27:4)
• 221. Not Guilty! (Matt. 27:1, 2, 11-14; Mark 15:l-5; Luke 23:1-12: John 18:28-38)*
• 222. Jesus Condemned and Beaten (Matt. 27:15-31; Mark 15:6-20; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39-19:16)*
• 223. The Road to Golgotha (Matt. 27:31-33; Mark 15:20-22; Luke 23:26-33; John 19:17)*
• 224. "The Place of a Skull" (Matt. 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17)*
• 225. Crucifixion (Matt. 27:34,54; Mark 15:23,24,39; Luke 23:33,34,47; John 19:18)*
• 226. The King of the Jews (Matt. 27:37; John 19 :19-22; Mark 15 :26; Luke 23 :38)*
• 227. A Seamless Robe (John 19:23-25; Matt. 27:35,36; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34)*
• 228. "The Reproaches of Them that Reproached Thee" (Matt. 27:39-43; Mark 25:29-32; Luke 23:35-37)*
• 229. Women at the Cross (John 19:25-27)*
• 230. The Thief on the Cross (Luke 23:39-43)*
• 231. Darkness (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44, 45)*
• 232. "Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me? (Matt. 27:46-49; Mark 15:34-36)*

John’s gospel now tells of a third appearance of Jesus to his disciples — not the third manifestation since his resurrection (see 20:14), but the third to be recorded here, the other two being both of them appearances in the upper room (20:19,26), one on the day of resurrection and the other exactly a week later. So it seems likely that this encounter with their risen Lord now to be narrated was again on the first day of the week, just two weeks after his resurrection.

Was this to teach the disciples that the first day of the week would prove always to be the best time for communion with their risen Lord?

This new phanerosis evidently took place after an interval of some days during which the disciples were left to their own resources. A full week may have elapsed without any further personal fellowship with their beloved Master. And in this time the eleven had apparently become split into two groups. Six of them were with Peter. But what about the other four? It may be (John gives virtually no detail regarding this) that Peter’s leadership had become an issue between them, the four deeming him to be disqualified by his outrageous denials of Jesus on the night of the Lord’s arrest. But what of themselves? Hadn’t they all turned and fled (Mt. 26:56)?

The threat of a rift in the One Body — a thing disciples of Jesus have always been “good” at — would explain the very strong emphasis in this concluding episode in John’s Gospel on Peter and his special responsibilities (see v.7,1 1,15,18,19,22).

Naturally Thomas, the first to be mentioned here among the six, now stood shoulder to shoulder with Peter, for up to a week ago had he not stoutly denied his Master’s resurrection until it was madness to deny any longer?

Again, it may be that, after the Lord’s repeated message on the gathering-in of Gentiles (ch.171) and the resurrection emphasis on Galilee of the Gentiles (see ch. 256) there were some among the eleven who were already making an issue of this principle. The unexpected use of “Tiberias” instead of the much more familiar “Sea of Galilee” might perhaps be intended as a deliberate hint in this direction.

Nor is it unlikely that John’s intensely symbolic mind saw a like meaning behind Peter’s abrupt: “I go a-fishing.” At the time, the apostle doubtless meant no more than the expression of an eagerness to indulge his old enthusiasm. But, with hindsight, John was capable of unique insight into the significance of ordinary events. The “feed my sheep” episode may also be intended to add a Gentile flavour to this narrative.

There are two curious details about this fishing expedition. It included two who go nameless. Why should John make this deliberate omission? One of the two wasalmost certainly Andrew, Peter’s brother and himself a fisherman. Since there is reason to believe that in writing his gospel John had some collaboration from Andrew, it is not unlikely that that apostle insisted: “Keep my name out of this”.

The only plausible guess that can be made as td’ the identity of the other anonymous member of the party is that he was Philip, for had not he and Andrew been already associated earlier with the Lord’s provision of bread and fish (Jn. 6:5-9), and were not he and Nathaniel long-standing friends (1:45fif)?

But why should Nathaniel be included in this fishing expedition? No fisherman he, surely! did he not come from land-locked Cana? Then must not his insistence on joining the rest be read as a declaration of unanimity with them?

But by indulging his enthusiasm for his old trade (see ch.29) Peter was in error here. His Master had called him more than once from his fishing (Jn. 1:41,42 —no longer son of Jonas the fisherman; Lk. 5:8-11; 22:32; cp. Jn. 17:18; 20:21). Peter was giving the wrong lead. The reproof of this retrograde step comes out clearly enough by and by.

Fruitless Toil

In fact, that reproof came, in one sense, right away. It was a dark moonless night, the end of Passover month. Yet when conditions were in that respect ideal, they had no catch at all. Peter, ought you not to have learned something from those long dark discouraging hours?

At last, as the brightness of dawn was spreading across the sky, they headed back to shore. And there at the water’s edge they saw a fire, and by it a stranger who hailed them as though he would purchase a fish out of their catch: be’-‘Boys, you haven’t anything to eat, have you?”

A strange question. Why did he not say:

“Boys, sell me a fish, will you?”

Instead, he seemed to imply a knowledge that they had caught nothing — “not one (fish)”, for themselves, let alone for customers.

The reply came, curt and disconsolate:

“No!”

What fisherman likes to admit to total lack of success? This encounter only served to accentuate their misery.

Why this failure? Was there any stretch of water in the wide world more prolific of fish than Galilee? even a small boy with a stick, a piece of string and a bent pin would have done better? Then, why this failure?

Even whilst a grumbling Peter called to mind the one other occasion (Lk. 5:5) when he had fared so badly, the stranger shouted to them again:

“Try the right side of your boat, and you will find!” Find! It was a strange word to use about fishing; much more suitable to describe finding men.

Now a grumbling Peter had something else to grumble about.

‘What does an amateur like him know about this? ‘”We’re the professionals, aren’t we? If there were a shoal offish alongside, wouldn’t we recognize it in this daylight?’

But there was authority in that voice. So, even though not identifying the speaker, they did as they were bidden, and forthwith (Gk.) their net was loaded (Gk. mestos) with the best fish in Galilee. Six more pairs of hands came to Peter’s assistance, yet all their united straining, as they gasped with both effort and amazement, could not bring that net on board. Two hundred pounds of fish per man was more than they could manage.

Recognition

But now came recognition. Strange that they should have failed to recognize the figure of Jesus. Yet more strange that they failed to identify the voice (Jn. 10:4). But now John, the most discerning of the Twelve when it came to seeing the meaning behind the facts (e.g. 20:8), all at once knew the truth. It is always so. Men whose minds are close to the mind of Christ readily recognize his presence by what he does in their own personal experience.

With a mighty effort of self-discipline John suppressed his excitement and said quietly to Peter at his side:

“It is the Lord!”

Of course, of course! The apostle could scarce hold in a mighty shout of gladness. And then, as on so many other occasions (p.707) he was in the grip of an uncontrollable eagerness to be at his Lord’s side. What cared he now for this abundance of fishes? Was not this a repetition of what the Lord had done for him on a certain much talked-of occasion? So he left the net to the helpless six, and grabbing his heavy fisher’s coat (for he was clad only in swimming trunks), he wrapped the garment round him, and threw himself over the side to get to Jesus.

The others, just as eager as Peter, doubtless, scrambled into the dinghy, now near to capsizing, and rowed the hundred yards to shore, towing the net-full of fishes into shallow water.

Soon they were all gathered round that fire on the beach, and they marvelled that there on the hot embers lay a large fish, cooked, ready for eating.

“Bring some of your catch, too” said Jesus, and forthwith Peter returned to the net and with a mighty effort quite beyond his normal powers, he dragged all the fish ashore and — his ingrained habit asserting itself—he began to lay them out (in fives?) to facilitate the counting of them. How many he now brought, as instructed, to lay before his Master, the record does not say.

Meantime all the apostolic group knew for sure that it was their Lord to whom they owed this astonishing experience. Yet none of them dared to interrogate him in confirmation of what needed no confirmation. In silence or with restrained speech they tried to cover up their shame and excitement and gladness. Thomas, of course, was quietly pointing at the marks in hands and feet.

Now, reclining round the fire, they satisfied their hunger with bread and fish, just as at the Feeding of the Five Thou sand (6:10). But now there was fire also. John’s unusual word for “fish” (opsarion) is the same in both places. And that fish on the coals was sufficient to satisfy the sharp appetites of seven hungry men — and Jesus. They did not eat what they had caught themselves. His provision was adequate, and incomparably appetizing. The words: “he taketh bread, and giveth them” are identical with the Lord’s Last Supper usage (Mk. 14:22); so it may be inferred that he also gave thanks for the God-given meal, as at the Last Supper (Mt. 26:26).

And the intensely symbolic mind of John (App.2) brooded on the extraordinary character of it all, and his soul also was nourished therewith.

Symbolism: Fish and FISH

It is now time to read this remarkable record with a different pair of spectacles. John never calls the Lord’s miracles “miracles”; he calls them “signs”, using a word which bids his reader look for a further meaning than what the superficial details suggest.

The highly symbolic nature of this sign will be the better appreciated when it is set alongside the earlier miraculous catch of fishes in Luke 5. The resemblances and differences between the two are impressive.

Luke 5	John 21
Jesus the teacher	Jesus the absent Lord
Toiling all night	Toiling all night
Not a single fish taken	Not a single fish taken
Peter the leader	Peter the leader
Jesus in the boat	Jesus on the shore — unrecognized
Two boats	One boat
All kind of fishes —	Great fishes —
countless	a precise number
Fish caught from both boats	Fish caught on the right side
Boat sinking	Even the dinghy did not sink
Fish pulled on board	Disciples unable to pull the net in
No fire, no bread	Fire, and bread and one fish shared by all
Nets breaking	Net not broken
“Depart from me”	Peter’s eagerness to be with Jesus
“I am a sinful man”	“Thou knowest that I love thee”
“Follow me”	“Follow me”
“A fisher of men”	“Feed my sheep”

The problems provoked here by correspondence and contrast:

The essential difference between the two is that the first miracle describes in symbol the ministry of the gospel by Jesus and his apostles. (See ch. 29 on this). The second miracle, coming at the beginning of a New Day, foreshadows the fruits of that ministry in the future when Christ is “manifested” (21:1).

Then, he is a Teacher. Now, in his unperceived, unrecognized coming, he is a glorious Lord.

The disciples toil all night. By themselves they have no catch in their gospel net. When Christ comes, all at once their catch is unbelievably great.

In the earlier days of the gospel, the nets were riven and the boat sank — a plain prophecy of division in the church and consequent failure, the two boats representing Jew and Gentile in the same work.

In the earlier phase, all kinds of fishes were caught, good and bad. In the last fishing only “great” fishes are caught; the numbering of them signifies that they are redeemed; their atonement price has been paid (see Ex. 30:12-14). And these are caught on the right side, this keyword recalling those who are set at the Lord’s right hand on Judgment Day. And in that day there will be no pathetic breaking nets. Instead, the glorious idea of one unbroken Body of Christ will be a realized ideal instead of a hypocritical mockery of truth.

For all there will be a relaxed participation in a meal of fulfilled fellowship, and in this meal Christ will also share. He, and not the apostles, is the one who has prepared it.

At that time the disciple, knowing himself to be sinful and unworthy still, will nevertheless once again be bidden: “Follow me”, this time no longer eager to gather fish into the net but instead to minister as a kindly shepherd after the pattern of him who is the Good Shepherd.

One last point: In this pattern Jesus himself is both broken Bread and appetizing fish. Here is the origin of the symbol, very common in the early days of Christian persecution, when Christians silently recognized each other by the wearing of a fish symbol.

The idea went further than that, for here is a mystic anagram, more evocative than any sign of the cross:

In Greek “fish” is:

I	Jesus
Ch	Christ
Th	God’s
U	Son
S	Saviour

NOTES: John 21:1-14

1.	The sea of Tiberias. Why this unusual name? To recall the remarkable symbolic happenings in 6:1,22,23,29?
	Shewed (note the AV italics); literally: he manifested (his glory in a final miracle?}; s.w. 2:1 1.
2.	Peter and Thomas. The two who denied him are set first!
	Nathaniel now experiences the fulfilment of 1:50.
	Two other. Gospel fishing is not restricted to the Twelve.
3.	I go.- Gk. hupago often has a suggestion of curt impatience.
	I go a fishing. The last occasion was Mt. 1 7:27. Contrast Jn. 20:21; 1 7:1 8. From this point on, in the N T fishing is replaced by keeping sheep; v.15ff.
	Caught nothing; cp. Ps. 1 27:1.
4.	On the shore. Mt. 13:48 helps the symbolism here.
	Knew not. The Gk. is emphatic: not one of them at all knew him. Does this verse carry disturbing implications concerning disciples when Jesus is manifest in the Last Day?
5.	Children. Boys. Is there a hint of reproof in the non-use of “brethren”? 20:17.
	Have ye any meat? Rather: You haven’t a thing to eat, have you? More reproof? Note the symbolism behind these happenings, and their appropriateness to the Second Coming:
		a. v.5: no food at all; then (v.6) an abundance.
		b. Jesus not recognized.
		c. The disciple unwilling to come to Christ naked; so he wears his fisher’s coat,
		d. A sudden endowment of superhuman strength.
		e. Christ provides a meal: One Fish for seven men.
		f. The text implies that Jesus knew the answer must be a negative.
6.	Ye shall find. This word is unexpected here. But s.w. 1 :45.
	Multitude of fishes. For interpretation, see Is. 60:5, and perhaps Ez. 47:9.
7.	When Simon heard. His name means ‘one who hears.’
	Why did not the others emulate Peter’s urgent resolution to go to Jesus? (a) non-swimmers? (b) more concerned about the fishes? (c) lacking Peter’s faith? (see next chapter). With reference to the Last Day sign, what is this detail meant to imply?
9.	Bread, fish. Both are symbols of Christ.
10.	In view of v.9, why this instruction? It seems pointless, but certainly isn’t. See note on verse 5.
11.	Went up should surely read went back to the dinghy. This prefix ana often has this meaning.
12.	Come and dine. Here again Jesus was made known to disciples in the Breaking of Bread.
	None durst ask him. Cp. 4:27; 16:23 (B.S. 1.09).
13.	Fish. Definite article: the Fish, the one now cooking on the fire.
14.	The third time. But it was at least the seventh. Then does John mean the third in his record, or the third appearance on the first day of the week (20:19,26)?

Part 1: Chapters 1 to 26

Select a chapter:

• Foreword (To be read)
• 1. The Foreword to Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1-4)
• 2. The Genealogies of Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)
• 3. Zacharias and Gabriel (Luke 1:5-25)*
• 4. Gabriel’s Greater Mission (Luke 1:26-38)*
• 5. Two Inspired Songs (Luke 1: 39-55)
• 6. The Birth of John (Luke 1:56-80)
• 7. Joseph and the Prophecy of Immanuel (Matt. 1:18-25)
• 8. When was Jesus born?*
• 9. The Birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-10)*
• 10. Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:21-39)
• 11. The Wise Men (Matt. 2)*
• 12. Twelve Years Old (Luke 2:40-52)*
• 13. The Word (John 1:1-5)
• 14. Jesus and Moses (John 1:6-18)
• 15. The Preaching of John (Matt. 3:1-12; Mark 1:2-8; Luke 3:1-18)*
• 16. John’s Baptism
• 17. The Baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3: 13-17; Mark 1: 9-11; Luke 3: 21-23; John 1: 32)*
• 18. “Tempted of the Devil’’ (Matt. 4: 11; Mark 1: 12,13; Luke 4: 1-13
• 19. The Witness of John (John 1: 19-28)*
• 20. The Call of the First Disciples (John 1:35-51)*
• 21. Water into Wine (John 2:1-11)*
• 22. The First Cleansing of the Temple (John 2: 13-22)*
• 23. Nicodemus (John 2:23-3:12)*
• 24. “Earthly things, and heavenly” (John 3:13-21)*
• 25. Increase and Decrease (John 3: 22-36)*

A fishing party, which included the present writer, once caught in a fairly short time off the coast of British Columbia, six splendid salmon. Their total weight was sixty-three pounds. If the “great fishes” caught in Galilee were on a par with these, this would make the total catch now under consideration to be about three-quarters of a ton.

But why — the question may well be asked — was John so careful as to specify meticulously how many fish were caught? At different times thousands of his readers have scented a special significance here. There is a sound instinct behind this.

Here, then, is a list of suggestions (doubtless incomplete). Some of these have a good Biblical flavour; others not at all.

1.	153 = 9×17: and 9 is the number of judgment (is it?), whilst 17 combines the ideas of “spirit” and “order”: 10 + 7 (do they?). So it is said! (Companion Bible).
2.	There were not 153 fishes, but 154—and this is 11 x 14 (or 22 x 7), again with corresponding numerical meaning. Sic!
3.	Contemporary Greek zoologists asserted that the sea contains precisely 153 different species of fishes. So John saw this number as symbolizing men out of all nations within the gospel net (Hoskyns).
4.	By Gematria (that is, substituting the numerical value of each letter), the Greek word for “fishes’ (ichthues) gives 1224 which is 153 x 8. Thus, “fishes” suggests those caught in the gospel net according to the eighth sign.
5.	When “Sons of God” is written in Hebrew characters it gives, by Gematria once again (par.4): 153. This result only holds true, however, if the Hebrew definite article is included: B’nei ha-Elohim, which could signify: Sons (disciples, converts) of the Mighty (the Apostles), that is, the fruits of their preaching.
6.	2 Chronicles 2:17 gives 153 thousand and six hundred as the number of “strangers”, i.e. Gentiles, in Israel who were numbered by David. And in Exodus 30:14-16, numbering of the people is associated with atonement and redemption.
7.	And now, mathematics. For the reason made plain by this diagram, 10 is called a triangular number 4.
	* ** *** ****
	The next in the set is, of course, 15; and then 21, and so on.
	153 is one of this family. 153 = triangular number 17.
	Similarly, 120 (Acts 1:15) = triangular number 15 (and 15 = triangular number 5).
	276 (Acts 27:37) = triangular number 23.
	666 (Rev. 13:18) = triangular number 36 (and 36 = triangular number 8).
	These are the most noteworthy, but not the only, examples to be found in the NT The odds against all the three-figure numbers in the NT being “triangular” are enormous. Has such a thing happened by “chance”? So it looks as though the early church saw special meaning in the idea of triangular numbers. But what? Possibly, but not certainly, according to Matthew 28:19, thus:
			Father
			/
		Son		Holy Spirit
	There may be some other more satisfactory explanation of 153 outside the range of the seven suggestions listed here. But it is not necessary to believe that the eighth sign has eight different meanings.

254. “Lovest Thou Me?” (John 21:15-19)

After the miraculous catch of fishes and the meal of fellowship which ensued, Jesus addressed himself to Peter in words which carry a certain ambiguity: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Was the reference to these other disciples or to these fishes? i.e: ‘Peter, do you love me more than these other disciples love me?’ or: ‘Peter, do you love me more than you love your fishing?’

Grammatically it might be either. The reader has only the context of the words to guide him. The conclusion usually reached is that Jesus was making allusion to Peter’s strong declaration of loyalty that “though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended;” and, “even, if I must die with thee, yet will I in no wise deny thee” (Matthew 26:33,35). Nevertheless, within a few hours, Peter had thrice denied his Lord with oaths and curses. And now three times, as if with allusion to that abysmal lapse of loyalty, Jesus put the disquieting question: “Lovest thou me?”

Although with hardly an exception, the commentators prefer this interpretation, scarcely any one of them offers a reason beyond the correspondence of these three questions with the three denials and the sharp contrast between denial and love. Plumtre stresses also the mention of a “fire of coals” in John 21:9 and 18:1 8, but this seems rather pointless.

Then, in view of certain difficulties, can this conclusion be accepted with confidence? For instance, is it conceivable that Jesus would torture his apostle in this fashion, and in the presence of some of the others? True, he was about to confer big pastoral responsibility on Peter. But was a blunt, almost over-emphatic, reminder of Peter’s weakness a suitable prelude to such a commission? Is it conceivable that in the Day of Judgment, before Jesus accepts those whom he sets at his right hand, he will torment them with pointed reminders of past disloyalty? This is not the Jesus of the gospels.

The Lord had already appeared to Peter on the day of his resurrection with the express purpose of comforting him in his self-torture: “Go tell his disciples and Peter…”; “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” And it was doubtless with a vivid grateful memory of all that that encounter had meant to him that Peter wrote, years later: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:5). This is one of the many pointed allusions to the gospels to be traced in 1 Peter. For Peter that meeting with his risen Lord meant his own spiritual resurrection from a day of despair, self-recrimination and bitter weeping. Is it conceivable that, after the Lord had appeared to him to impart reassurance and consolation, he would then proceed to rub salt into a sore wound that was not yet closed? Again it has to be said – this is not the Jesus of the gospels!

Further, is it not difficult to imagine Jesus inciting one of his followers to assert over and over again that he does love the Lord more than the rest do? If Peter answered point-blank: “Yes, I do,” would he not be inviting a yet more pointed reminder of those tragic hours in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace. On the other hand, if the apostle had responded with an equally explicit: “No,”the answer would have been insincere, for none loved Jesus more than Peter did. And, either way, what was to be gained by making Peter so uncomfortable concerning the worst hour of his life? Had he not already suffered enough in his own soul because of it?

Yet another important objection, of a very different kind, is the complete lack of contextual connection between the narrative of John 21 and Peter’s denials of Jesus in John 18.

A powerful alternative

This weakness—a serious one, surely—is certainly not apparent when the alternative meaning is considered: “Simon, do you love me more than you love your fishing?” The context shouts for this interpretation. In the immediate prelude to this three-fold apostrophe, there is not the smallest allusion to pastoral responsibilities, but there is emphatic reference — of a disapproving kind — to fishing: “I go a fishing… they caught nothing”… then the Lord, having rubbed in their failure (v.5 Gk.), himself provides the catch, and also the much needed meal … the shame-faced silence of the disciples (“none of them durst ask him”). All this is followed by the Lord’s insistence that there be no more “girding of thyself” (v.18) with a fisher’s coat (v.7); instead, a repeated “Follow me” (v. 19,22), itself a pointed renewal of the call to be a fisher of men (Mt. 4:19), a call given immediately after the earlier provision of a miraculous net-full of fishes. The grim words: “another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldest not” become even more grim if taken to imply: Then ought you not to get on with my work as speedily and energetically as possible?”

With such a context to steer the reader’s understanding, one is left marvelling at the obsession of the commentators here with Peter’s denials.

Thus, John’s gospel can thankfully be read as concluding not with an encounter full of uncomfortable reproach for a lapse already much repented of, but as a necessary reminder that service of the risen Lord and his brethren must come before all else. The reader turns the page and is immediately aware in the Book of Acts that Simon the fisherman is dead. He too is risen – Peter the preacher, Peter the shepherd, Peter the rock.

This, surely, is why Jesus here addressed Peter as “Simon, son of Jonas.” Almost certainly Peter was a fisherman because his father had been a fisherman before him. Such was the way of life in those days. Moreover, Peter and Andrew had their own boat — a thing unlikely with young men, unless the boat was inherited. Such, at least, is the way of things to this day in most fishing villages of Britain. Consequently, if Jesus were alluding to Peter’s love for his trade, there would be much point in calling him “son of Jonas.”

The question is not to be lightly thrust aside. With such a designed emphasis throughout the entire incident on the contrast between Peter’s former employment and his new and big responsibilities in the gospel. It would seem to be at least possible that Jesus was pressing home in Peter’s mind: Do you love me or your fishing more? Are you not willing, Peter, to say a final farewell to that old life and to become instead a shepherd of my flock?

Many years later the lesson which Peter learned that day was still remembered, to be passed on to Peter’s successors facing a similar temptation: “Feed the flock of God… not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Peter 5:2). Thus it seems by no means unlikely that “Lovest thou me more than these” was a reminder to Peter, that having been called to be a fisher of men, he must abandon his old trade altogether.

NOTES: John 21:15-19

15.	No reference here to Peter’s denials, but plenty to fishing: v.3a,c; 6,7,12,15-17,18,1 9b; Mt. 4:19.
16.	Feed my sheep; 10:11,16; 1 Jn. 3:16; Acts 20:28. Peter can be a shepherd, but not a Door; Jn. 10:7. The Catholic application of these words is vetoed by 1 Pet. 5:1-4.
17.	Thou knowest all things; i.e. about us disciples; 16:30,27; 1Jn. 3:20.
18.	Walked; v.7.
	Old; Ps. 37:25..
	Stretch forth thine hands in crucifixion, the time when, in contrast with past failures, Peter would achieve more than he had purposed or promised (13:37). From now on he knew himself to be sentenced to crucifixion; cp. 14:27.
	Wither thou wouldest not; Is. 46:4.
19.	By what death; 10:14,15. Jesus apparently implied; ‘So go on with the work whilst you can.’
	Glorify God: crucifixion; 12:33.

At some time during this last Galilean ministry Jesus laid upon the apostles the importance of a return to Jerusalem. There they must “wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me.” This promise of a gift of Holy Spirit power was one which had been repeatedly made to them. They needed this divine help. How could they, out of their own puny mental equipment, understand all that had been committed to them, or bring all things concerning the words and works of Jesus to remembrance? How could they convince the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness in Christ, and of Messiah’s judgment to come? (Jn. 16:7-11). How could they guide the growing ecclesia into all truth or bid it set its hope on the salvation that was yet to be brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ? For such work to be done with truth and power, the dependable guidance of the Holy Spirit was palpably necessary. On an earlier occasion, when Jesus had sent them forth preaching and healing, the Spirit’s guidance had been openly manifest. Soon, promised Jesus, they would know the powers of this heavenly Advocate and Guide in yet more startling fashion.

But where else could this bestowal of heavenly grace be made except in Jerusalem, for did not one of the prophecies which Jesus himself had expounded speak of an abundant outpouring of the Spirit in Jerusalem? It was emphatically declared in the context of that promise that: “in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 2:28-32).

The promise of the Comforter had plainly implied that these disciples were to be left without the strength and inspiration of their Master’s personal presence. But human nature is always loth to face up honestly to unpalatable truth. So this discouraging aspect of Christ’s words they quietly ignored, and concentrated instead on the unmistakable fact that the Joel prophecy of the Holy Spirit was closely associated with the bringing in of Messiah’s kingdom.

‘Preach! preach!’

Accordingly, then, when Jesus re-joined them in Jerusalem, they pressed eager enquiries upon him: “Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” Their minds were filled with an expectation even more intense than at the time of their Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. But from Jesus came no encouragement whatever of their mood of confidence.

‘It is not for you to know beforehand when this desired consummation shall be,” he said. This remains in the Father’s knowledge only. But, (he added, apparently changing the subject abruptly) there is meantime an important job for you to do, and God’s gift of Holy Spirit power is specially to help you in it. This message concerning me is to be made known to all men through your preaching. Here, then, is your task. You will begin, of course, in Jerusalem and the area around it, next go to the Samaritans (an unexpected commission!), and then (when they were expecting a big emphasis on Galilee, the scene of his own major effort) go to the remotest parts of the earth.” (cp. also: “Revelation” HAW, p.268).

Their Jewish outlook would allow them to interpret the last part of this commission in only one way — they were to extend their assignment to include Jews everywhere (see Acts 11:19), even in the obscure corners of the Roman Empire and in the eastern countries where the legions had never marched. Even with this limited interpretation it remains a matter of no little surprise that they were so unenterprising in the fulfilment of their mandate. Years later they were still in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and had to be forced further afield by the ravages of the wolf of Benjamin. Their Lord really had meant “all nations.”

There is another aspect of this commission now entrusted to the apostles. Was Jesus abruptly changing the subject when he spoke in this way, or was he saying: “It is not for you to know precisely when the kingdom is to be established, but I can tell you this—the coming of that great Day depends on yourselves and the work of preaching which you and your successors do in my name”? Not that the kingdom was or is to be brought in through preaching (if so, the work of Christ is a permanent failure), but rather that in the divine purposes there is a subtle connection between the way men respond to the message of the kingdom and the time of the Lord’s coming to establish it. (The RV of Acts 3:19,20 and 2 Peter 3:11,12 should be pondered here). This is a much-neglected meaning of Christ’s words.

If there was uncertainty regarding the scope of the task now assigned to them, it was an uncertainty in their own minds rather than in the Lord’s re-statement of it, for his language was unmistakably comprehensive in its scope: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel (this gospel of my resurrection and coming glory) to the whole creation.” What a contrast with his explicit instruction concerning their earlier preaching: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5,6). But now no effort must be spared to take the message to men of every race and calibre: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” (Matthew 28:19). There is a neat suggestion about the shape of this expression in the Greek text that though the message was to be proclaimed to the masses, they were to be received into the church of Christ as individuals, each separately becoming a disciple. The same emphasis is even more pointed in Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

A triune baptism

This baptism was to be “into the name of the “Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Not a three-fold dipping, as some have erroneously inferred. This strange notion is vetoed both by the form of the words and by early church history. Nor was it intended to be an outward acknowledgment of belief in a Trinitarian creed, for such concepts did not crystallize out in the early church for well over a century after the writing of the gospels.

Some have argued for the omission of this three-fold baptismal formula, almost entirely on the ground that this passage is unique. But such cavalier methods betray a strange unscholarly attitude. The textual evidence in favour of Matthew 28:19 is overwhelming. However they are understood, the words must be accepted. For all its misdemeanours the early church must not be accused of a comprehensive forgery here. Two of the earliest Christian writings (the Didache and Justin Martyr) bear witness to the validity of these words. And, by implication, a mass of New Testament passages supports the vital idea that this baptism is the seal of a salvation which the Father has wrought for men through the death and resurrection of His only-begotten Son, a salvation which has been brought near to the’ believer through the power of the Holy Spirit in the message preached and passed on in inspired Holy Scripture. (The following are a few of the passages relevant to this theme: 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13,14; Acts 2:33; 5:30-32; 15:8-11; 19:1-5; 1 Cor.6:l 1; 12:4-6; 2 Cor.l3:14; Jude 20,21; Matthew 23:8-10 R.V; Revelation 1:4,5 (See “Bible Studies”, ch. 12.09).

Continuing instruction

Very pointedly Jesus steered his disciples away from any mistaken notion of baptism into the Faith as a beginning and end. Once baptism was administered, there was still the need for “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you.” All too often the mistake has been made of spending long laborious hours on the careful systematic instruction and preparation of a candidate for baptism, only to leave the spiritual fledgeling to fend for himself once the rite has been administered. By contrast the words of Jesus stress the importance of expanding the spiritual education of converts after baptism. That this was a feature of life in the early church may be inferred from the fact that it was to assemblies largely made up of slaves and commoners that some of the most profound letters ever written in human history were addressed. A high level of spiritual perception is presupposed by the letters of Peter and Paul and John.

More than this, these words of Jesus convey also the impression that the pattern of community life which took shape in the early years of the church did not come about by accident or by any slavish following of Jewish precedents. All was according to the principles which Jesus himself had taught the apostles during those fruitful forty days.

Sensational signs

There was also a promise of dramatic vindication of the message: “These signs shall follow them that believe.” It is understandable that in an age dominated by a wonder-working paganism, these vivid and incontestable tokens of true divine power would be necessary as a decisive witness against the vested interests of well-organized cults of magic. Today the same signs would probably be more of a hindrance than a help to the well-balanced preaching of God’s saving grace in Christ. Indeed it is not altogether untrue to say that even the mention of signs here is read by some modern believers with misgivings: casting out devils, speaking with tongues, handling deadly snakes, drinking poison, healing the sick by the laying on of hands. Why should these powers be imparted to the early church and then so soon disappear, leaving later generations to apologize lamely for current ineffective witness and also leaving the door wide open for sensational charlatans with loud-mouthed claims to be the heirs of apostolic powers?

The withdrawal of the gifts of the Spirit is a thing to be profoundly thankful for. For, in the first place, this lapse of open Spirit blessing would never have happened had it not been in the best interests of the believers. The Lord has certainly done what is best for the well-being of his people. But, further, let it not be forgotten that the key virtue in Christian life is faith. What very limited scope there would be for faith today if these signs were openly available for the confutation of unbelief! “Blessed are they that have not seen (either empty tomb or Holy Spirit powers), and yet have believed.”

But those who have not seen are nevertheless blessed with their own opportunity to know the risen Lord through these narratives about him. For, although Jesus provided many other signs for his disciples during the wonderful Forty Days, these which are included in the record “are written that ye (readers further afield and of later days) might believe. “Indeed, the massive omissions John refers to were deliberate. It was “that ye might believe” – for the conviction that comes from seeing and handling is hardly of the same quality as the faith which has . had no opportunity to see as the disciples saw, and yet is happily content to read and to believe on the strength of that.

Luke wrote with the same intention and the same unwavering emphasis: “… that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed” (1:4). And thus, John adds, “continuing to believe, you may continue to have Life through his

name”—he uses Life here in his own special idiomatic sense (e.g. 3:15,36; 1 Jn.3:14_; 5:12,13).

John’s witness

Again, at the very end of his gospel John underlines that the writing of it has been part of his commission from the Lord. His witness is true not only because he himself saw with his own eyes (19:35) but also his record is authenticated by dependable witnesses.

The Muratorian Fragment (date c. 1 80 A.D.) has this remarkable story about how John’s gospel came to be written:

“It was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate everything in his own name subject to the revision of the rest.”

And Clement of Alexandria (c. 190), obviously an independent witness, gives this account:

“The tradition of the elders from the first that John, last, having observed the bodily things that had been set forth in the gospels, on the exhortation of his friends, inspired by the Spirit produced a spiritual gospel.” Peter, the bishop of Alexandria in 300 A.D. says that he had seen the autograph copy.

Here, besides an emphatic declaration of divine inspiration, there is once again the mention of others associated with the apostle. Thus is explained the sudden occasional emergence of the pronoun “we”, not only in this passage (21:24), but also in John 1:14; 19:35, and also in several places in the Epistles:! Jn. l:lff_;5:9_;3Jn.12;(see”Seven Epistles” HAW).

It is worth noting also that, if John had contemporaries who out of their own experience could authenticate the apostle’s record, it must have been put on paper much earlier than his closing years when he was a really old man who had outlived his own generation.

The last verse of the gospel reads like a literary flourish. But is it that? –

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did (after his resurrection?) the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

The reason for this is (Ecc. l2:12) that much study of anything to do with Jesus is a weariness of the fleshly mind. So if a man would see himself transformed into a higher and better being, a bona fide member of God’s New Creation, let him lay aside all hopes of achievement through wrestling and high endeavour, and let him learn to relax in the fellowship of Christ. It was for this that John and the others wrote their gospels.

It may be that with his idiomatic use of kosmos (see ch. 107), the apostle meant it literally: The Jewish world will not be able to find room for books about the risen Jesus. They (e.g. Schonfeld) still seek to kill him, because his word has no place (s.w.) in them (Jn.8.-37).

Nevertheless, in spite of all disbelief, whether of orthodox Jew or religious Gentile, these things stand true — in token of which John appends his Amen: This is Truth!

NOTES: Matthew 28:18-20

19.	Teach = make disciples. It is not sufficient that a man be instructed. He must also be baptized, and follow.
	Therefore. Because (v. 18) all authority is now appointed for Jesus, therefore all nations must hear; Acts 17:31.
	In the name of… In Gen. 1, the word 6aracomes three times.
20.	All things: Acts 2:42.
	I am with you. The Forty Days taught them this. Cp. Ex.3:12; 4:12,15; Mt. l :23 (this gospel begins and ends with this).
	To the end of the world; The consummation or climax of the age; cp. 13:39,49; Dan. 12:13 s.w.

Mark 16:15-18

15.	Go ye into all the world; cp. Jn.20:21; 21:15; Col. 1:23 (the process under way); Ps. 19:4 (Rom. 10:1 8); and contrast Mt. 10:5,6.
	The gospel; i.e. this gospel: 1 Cor. 15:2
17.	Gk. dative.- to, or for, them that believe. How reconcile with 1 Cor.l4:22; Heb.2:3b,4?
	New tongues; i.e. new to the speakers.
18.	Serpents; Mt.23:33; Ps.91:13.

Luke 24:49

49.	I send the promise of my Father; Jn.14:16. Here ‘send’ is present tense.
	This detail and tarry ye in Jerusalem both suggest that this paragraph belongs to the end of the Forty Days.
	Tarry means, literally, sit. But after receiving the Holy Spirit they still sat, for something like 14 years. Why? The Judaist problem was the great hindrance (see “Acts”, H.A.W., ch.40).
	Endued; i.e. clothed — different from ‘in-breathed’ (Jn.20:22).

John 21:24,25

24.	This is the disciple; cp. the authentication in Ex.6:26,27 (& Mk. 16:18 follows Ex.4:4).
	Testifieth; 15:26,27. Many refs. in 1 Jn.5 allude to the writing of this gospel; see ‘Seven Epistles’ H.A.W
25.	I suppose Gk: dokeo is stronger than this; I am confident.
	The world itself. Possible meaning: the Jewish world would not be able to tolerate them — because of their implications concerning his Person and his Power.
	Amen; unwarrantably omitted by many modern texts.

258. Ascension (Luke 24:50-53; Mark 16:19,20; Acts 1:9-12)

There came a day when Jesus led the eleven out of Jerusalem, probably at first light of dawn, along the familiar road towards Bethany. It was by this road that he had made his triumphal entry into the city. It was by this road that he had left the city each evening in the week before his crucifixion. It was by this road that he had led the disciples to his last Gethsemane. Now, once again, he was to be taken from them, but not this time to the accompaniment of hatred and threats. During the past weeks their minds had been prepared for their Lord’s departure by his discourses concerning the work they were to do in his absence and also by the unnatural suddenness of his appearances and disappearances. Now they had good reason to believe that even when he seemed to be absent from them, he was still present, though unseen.

The Ascension is described by Luke (twice) and by Mark, but a careful reading of Matthew and John reveals that they imply it: Mt.24:30; Jn.3:13; 16:7; 21:23.

All the manifestations of the risen Jesus had been to believers only — “not to all people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even unto us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.” But it is an impressive thought that on this last occasion, if on no other, as Jesus led his brethren out of the city, down into the valley, and up the oblique climb of Olivet, he must have been seen by others who were all unaware that the Glory of God passed by.

They breasted the slope until Bethany came in sight over the shoulder of the hill, and then Jesus bade them farewell — not the conventional goodbye of a departing friend, but a true “God be with you.

He gave them his blessing, the blessing of a true Melchizedek-Priest (Gen.14:1 9). In doing so, he uplifted those hands (Lev.9:22) in which the marks of crucifixion were still plainly to be seen. Probably he used the words of the familiar benediction, for now none had any right to use them but himself:

“The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

the Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace” (Numbers 6:24-26).

The Shekinah Glory

Even as the words were spoken, the Lord was taken up from before them. It was the experience of Elijah over again, and with a like significance — not the end of a ministry, but a change to a different kind of ministry. The impressive signs and wonders were henceforth to give way to a ministry of the “still small voice” among the seven thousand who would not bow the knee to Baal.

It would be a mistake to imagine the eyes of the disciples following Jesus on high until he was lost from their view in the misty vapours of a morning cloud. If this was all that the record intended to say, the detail would be almost too trivial to be worth mentioning. This cloud was the Shekinah Glory of God which had been manifest in cloud and fire to Abraham, to Moses and the children of Israel, to David, to Hezekiah, to Elijah and Elisha, and to the disciples on the mount of transfiguration. It was the Glory of the Lord which John was to see in Patmos and which all the world will behold when Jesus comes again “in the glory of his Father.” “Behold, he cometh with clouds ,” in like manner as he was received up.

In this manifestation of heavenly glory lies the explanation of Luke’s added detail that “they worshipped him.” They received his high-priestly blessing as Israel received a benediction from their high-priest, in an attitude of worship. Then they stood, staring into the sky to catch any last glimpse of their Lord. The ascension of Jesus was no instantaneous thing, for the Greek verb: “carried up”, is continuous. And in his return he will “so come in like manner” — and only disciples will be able to observe and understand and marvel.

The apostles would have stared for a while longer had not their attention been claimed by two men of startling appearance. Vivid white raiment, impressive demeanour, and tone of authority all proclaimed them angels of heaven, perhaps the very angels who had announced the resurrection of Jesus to the women at the tomb.

“Ye men of Galilee (they knew who the disciples were!), why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The repeated phrase (and again in verse 10) could hardly be more emphatic. It was not intended, however, to emphasize their loneliness or spiritual destitution, but rather the opposite, for even at that moment the Father was saying to the Son: “Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies (the nation of Israel!) thy footstool.” So the day must certainly dawn when the Messiah will assume full authority in a world which, up to the present day, has seen no beauty in him that they should desire him.

And he will come in like manner. A bodily Jesus who could be handled, and who ate with his disciples, will once again be bodily in their presence, eating bread and drinking wine as the abiding tokens that he, the Lord of Glory, was once a sacrifice for sin. As he went away visibly, so he will return visibly: “every eye shall see him.” And the very place of his return will be the same: “his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:4).

So the disciples returned to the city “with great joy” (Luke 24:52). Would they have been so joyful had they known that two thousand years were to drag their sinful course before their Master was seen again? The words imply strongly their expectation that this promised return of Jesus would happen in their own lifetime. And many other inspired Scriptures say the same thing: e.g. Matthew 10:23; 24:34; 26:64; Romans 13:11; 16:20; 1 Corinthians 7:29; Philippians 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 4: 15,17; 5:23; Hebrews 1:2_; 10:37; James 5:9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:17,18; Revelation 1:1,3,7; 2:5,16,25; 3:11. These words constitute one of the biggest and most neglected problems of the New Testament. See “Revelation,” H.A.W., Appendix.

The grounds for the disciple’s confidence lay not only in the authoritative reassurance of the angels but also in the emphatic teaching of the Scriptures which their Lord had lately taught them to read with better vision. Before they were back in Jerusalem their minds, responding to the new habit of seeking Christ in all the Scriptures, were dwelling wonder-ingly on such passages as Daniel 7:13,14 which their Lord had at least twice appropriated to himself (Matthew 24:30; 26:64): “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages (Rev. 5:9) should serve him.”

With glad excitement they talked over the sequence of passages in Ezekiel describing the departing of the Shekinah Glory of God from Jerusalem — how this visible token of God’s Presence was seen by the prophet to remove from the inner sanctuary to the door of the Holy Place, and thence to the temple gate, and thence to the Mount of Olives, and thus was withdrawn from human sight (Ezekiel 8:4; 9:3; 10:4,18,19; 11:23). How their spirits would have been depressed, by the contemplation of this prophecy, had there not been also the equally vivid description of a return: “And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory… And the Glory of the Lord came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east,… and behold the Glory of the Lord filled the house” (Ezekiel 43:2,4,5).

The apostles quickly saw the need why their Lord should leave them. Had he not fore-warned them? — “It is for your benefit that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.” As his followers became a growing community it would no longer be fitting for Christ their Lord to be localised. Instead, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, divine guidance would be available to all. So he had ascended on high to receive and distribute the Spirit’s gifts to men, that thus the Lord God might dwell among them (Psalm 68:18; Ephesians 4:8).

When the Feast of Pentecost came, bringing greater blessings than the first Pentecost could ever bestow (Exodus 19,20), the disciples were no longer puzzled by the strange paradox in their Master’s words. He had bidden them remember him in Bread and Wine, and thus “show forth the Lord’s death till he come”—the words declared his real absence, not his real presence. Yet were not his very last words to them: “Lo, I am with you all the days, even to the consummation of the age”? His earlier use of the same expression had clear reference to a return from heaven as judge of all (Matthew 13:39 RVm). So in all ages the guidance and blessing of the disciples was assured. If at times there has seemed little of blessing or spiritual prosperity among them, must it not be through downright lack of faith in this promise? But the eleven were untrammelled by any such handicap, and they “returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

NOTES Luke 24:50-53.

50.	He led them out. This Gk. word is used often for the deliverance of Israel; e.g. Acts 7:40.
	As far as to Bethany. There is implied symbolism here, for it was in Bethany that a friend of Jesus was risen from the dead when at last the Lord came to his graveside. Also, Bethany = Place of Date Palms. On this see “Bible Studies”, H.A.W, p. 135.
	Blessed them. The Law began and ended with curse: Gen.3:14-19; Mal.4:6; but the Gospel with blessing: Lk. 1:42; 24:50, and in v.51 the verb is continuous inform. The Melchizedek blessing is implied also in the repetition of heaven and earth in Mt.28:l 8 from Gen. 14:19.
51.	Carried up into heaven. In LXX this verb is commonly used for the presenting of sacrifice before God.
	Jesus had been impatient for the cross (Lk. 12:50; Mk.l 0;32) but the language of this verse suggests a reluctance to leave the disciples.
52.	With great joy;Jln. l6:20,22; 14:28.
53.	In the temple. See “Acts”, H.A.W, p.20.

Mark 16:19, 20.

19.	RV: The Lord Jesus. A unique title in Mark. Cp. in this respect ch.1:1.
	Received up into heaven, cp. 2 Kgs.2:9-12: ” the Spirit…taken up (s.w.) into heaven… parted…saw it” and instead of the Cloud, a whirlwind and chariots of fire.
	Sat on the right hand of God: 1 Sam.7:18; Ps.110:1
20.	They went forth and preached everywhere. What a remarkable contrast with Lk. 24:52,53.
	Confirming the word; Is. 44:26.
	see also “Studies in Acts”. H.A.W, ch.4.

259. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

Today it is an almost universally accepted conclusion of modern scholarship that the last twelve verses of Mark’s gospel were not written by Mark. “It may now be regarded as an assured finding of criticism that these verses are not part of Mark’s Gospel. The internal evidence, in itself really decisive for their rejection, is confirmed by the external testimony.” This quotation from the notes of Weymouth’s “New Testament in Modern Speech” (15th ed.) may be taken as typical of the opinions to be found, with scarcely an exception, in modern text-books.

Vigorous scholarly protests against this “assured finding” were made in the last century by Burgon, Scrivener and Cook separately, but their protests and arguments seem to have carried no weight whatever; indeed, the present writer after a fairly extensive search amongst modern text books has so far failed to come across any attempt at all to cope with the arguments these conservatives advanced. Dean Burgon especially, in his ₍“The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” was most vehement (and on that account all the more readable!) in his theological dialectic. Not for nothing did contemporaries refer to him as “the dear old dean of Billingsgate.” It may well be that the swashbuckling vigour with which he withstood the tide of modern criticism did his cause more harm than good. Opponents assumed from his invective a paucity of sound argument and so left him severely alone.

It is proposed here to review the entire problem pro and con. An effort has been made to get at the actual facts, and of necessity it has become needful to rely a good deal on Burgon, for he was one of the few with an intimate personal acquaintance with all aspects of the question. His energy and industry in combing over the relevant details of manuscripts and early Fathers were phenomenal. The study becomes a revealing commentary on the methods and “scholarship” of modern criticism.

In what follows an attempt has been made to maintain a reasonable degree of accuracy, but in a field as vast and complex as the textual criticism of the gospels, it is almost impossible (as will be seen by and by) for even front-line specialists to put out work free from error. The summary given here may be regarded as substantially correct.

The first and biggest part of this study must be a review and examination of the reasons advanced for disallowing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20:

1.	The more ancient manuscripts (uncials).
	The verses in question are entirely omitted by the oldest — the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices. Two .others give two conclusions: one which is generally recognized to be spurious, and then the twelve verses in the A.V
2.	The less ancient MSS (cursives).
	Of these no less than thirty include a marginal note to the effect that the last 12 verses are omitted from some codices.
3.	The versions (ancient translations of the Greek New Testament into other tongues). The spurious fjf- ending mentioned in par.) is given by one Old Latin MS, one Harkleian Syriac and two Ethiopic, v.9-20 being omitted altogether. Several Armenian MSS stop at v.8.
4.	The Early Christian Fathers.
	In their writings Eusebius, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of Antioch, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Severus of Antioch and Euthymius all throw doubt on the authenticity of the last 12 verses. Tertullian and Cyprian, who commented copiously on the Gospels, make no reference to them at all. Nor is any reference to them to be found in the writings of Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria.
5.	Both style and vocabulary in these verses demand a different author from the rest of Mark’s Gospel (compare the earlier quotation from Weymouth). A good deal will have to be said about this by and by.
6.	There is a serious discontinuity in the story at v.8. The women are described as fleeing in fear from the tomb, and they then disappear from the narrative. There is nothing to indicate where they went or what they did or how their amazement was later turned to conviction.
7.	Lastly, an explanation is available of the origin of these disputed verses. At the beginning of this concluding section an Armenian MS of the 1 Oth Century has the note: “according to Ariston.” Here, surely, is a hint that the author of this portion of the Gospel was Aristion, a personal disciple of Jesus, who is mentioned by Papias (about A.D. 100).

Catalogued in this way the evidence for the rejection of Mark 16:9-20 appears to be overwhelming. Whatever can be said on the other side, there would seem to be sufficient evidence here to settle the question out of hand. It turns out, however, that a careful cross-examination of this formidable list of witnesses leads to a series of unexpected results.

1. The evidence of the Uncial MSS.

Whilst it is undeniably true that the 12 verses do not occur in the Vatican MS (Codex B), there is in it at that point a blank column — the only blank column in the entire folio containing almost the whole of the Old Testament and New Testament. Here surely is plain evidence that the scribe of B copied from an older codex, which included the 12 verses. Hence B is an indirect witness in favour of their retention.

The Sinai MS (Codex Aleph) similarly omits the verses, but has no space. Instead, the words of the preceding section are spaced out deliberately so as to fill up in part the column that v.9-20 would have occupied. There are actually 560 letters in this column as against 678 in the one adjoining. To this must be added the fact that the scribe, still faced with the unusual feature of a column only partially filled, included at Mark 16:8 a long ornamental arabesque, unique in this MS which was obviously inserted to prevent any later scribe from adding further material. Thus indirectly Codex Aleph also adds its testimony to the ancient character of Mark 16:9-20.

Evidently, if anything, B and Aleph should be cited as witnesses for the defence rather than as witnesses for the prosecution.

The other two uncial MSS, both of them late (8th or 9th century), are really ambiguous in their testimony by the way in which they include two endings to Mark. Indeed they proclaim their unreliability on this particular question by including what is unquestionably a spurious insertion.

2. The evidence of the cursives.

Here, likewise, it is perfectly true that 30 cursives add a scribal note against v. 9-20 that these are wanting in some codices. But it should also be mentioned — a fact which has often been omitted when this part of the evidence is under review – that without exception they also add that v.9-20 are “undoubtedly genuinely,” “part of the text.” “in many copies,” “in the ancient copies,” “in the true Palestinian copies,” “in the approved copies preserved at Jerusalem.” So once again witnesses for the prosecution become witnesses for the defence!

3. The evidence of the versions is by no means as forceful as at first appears. Some of those omitting the section in question dilute their own authority by including the spurious ending already referred to. Others are demonstrably away from the main stream of tradition, as in the case of the solitary Old Latin MS (codex Bobbiensis) which omits the 12 verses, for it turns out that its testimony is contradicted (and surely confuted) by no less that 37 other Old Latin codices. The small group of Armenian MSS also which decide against the 12 verses are all of them, of fairly late date (9th century, approximately), and consequently of comparatively small authority.

4. The Early Fathers. Here the long catalogue of venerable names, some of them going back to a date anterior to that of the oldest MSS, looks really impressive. Yet, thanks to some brilliant detective work by Burgon, it is here where the case against the 12 verses is weakest, if not altogether non-existent. There was an admirable dictum of Dr. Routh, the centenarian President of Magdalen College, Oxford: “Let me recommend to you the practice of always verifying your references”.

With terrific industry Burgon made some remarkable and impressive researches. The story of his discoveries reads like a modern ‘who-dun-it.’

a.	The passage which has led to the inclusion of the names of Gregory of Nyssa, Severus of Antioch, and Hesychius of Jerusalem as adverse witnesses turns out to be part of a homily which has been attributed at different times to each of these three. Thus these three witnesses boil down to one. Is it slapdash scholarship or desperate determination to pile up a large number of witnesses in support of a weak case which prompted the use of this “trinity”? Two of these — the first two, let it be supposed — must be scored out of the list cited earlier.
b.	Further “verifying of the references” establishes conclusively that the remaining Hesychius together with Jerome and Victor of Antioch are not really giving their own independent opinions but are actually quoting verbatim from the writing of Eusebius (Jerome paraphrases slightly). In other words the names of these three must be deleted from the list of adverse witnesses because they are merely echoes of Eusebius whom they are following blindly and — as Burgon demonstrated — most unintelligently. Even on other grounds it is evident that Jerome should be called for the defence, rather than against it, because when he produced his authoritative Latin version of the New Testament called the Vulgate, he included the last 12 verses of Mark without indication of any degree of doubt whatever.
c.	Thus there now remain, out of what was a formidable list, only Eusebius and Euthymius. Of these the latter can be quietly dropped in the waste-paper basket, for he was not an “Early Father” at all, but a commentator of the 12th Century (the Dark Ages of scholarship). To include Euthymius at all is surely a confession of weakness.
d.	And even Eusebius turns out to be a doubtful starter. The question of these last 12 verses crops up in replies which Eusebius wrote to problems posed by a certain Marinus. One of these concerned the harmonizing of Mark 16 and Matthew 28. The gist of Eusebius’s long and prosy reply is this: The difficulty may be solved in either of two ways. First, to say — as some do -that Mark’s narrative ends at verse 8 (the rest of that chapter being met with only seldom), and thus the supposed contradiction ceases to exist. On the other hand, allowing the passage at the end of Mark to be genuine, it is the job of the student of the gospels to find a means of harmonizing Mark with Matthew. Whereupon this early Father of great reputation proceeds to suggest a rather feeble way of achieving “harmony.”
	Now this is surely a strange way of settling a difficulty — first, to say the text is spurious, and then to proceed to discuss it as though it were genuine. Eusebius himself does not appear to be convinced that the 12 verses are to be rejected, yet strangely enough he succeeds in convincing the modern critics! And, further, it is noteworthy that most of the critics (if not all) cite the first of Eusebius’s solutions to Marinus’s problem without even a mention of the alternative which he propounds. For what reason? — carelessness or bias?
e.	The citing of Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, of Cyprian and Tertullian on this question likewise appears in a very different light when carefully examined. It is true none of these four Fathers quote from Mark 16:9-20, but what are these facts worth? The argument from omission is notoriously unsafe and inconclusive. Readers may be acquainted with Bishop Whateley’s clever demonstration that Napoleon never existed and that the Napoleonic wars never took place, by carefully selected applications of the same phoney principle! Clement of Rome does not quote from Mark’s Gospel at all, so where is the point in insisting on his ignoring Mark 16? The argument from omission is of rather greater force where Cyprian and Tertullian are concerned because they wrote more copiously on the Gospels. But even so, the argument still remains precarious and certainly is not strong enough to allow both Westcott and Hort to lean on it as confidently as they do, making it in fact one of their most decisive lines of argument against the 12 verses. But for Matthew 11:20,21 it would have been possible to argue (from omission) that Jesus never went near Chorazin and hardly at all to Bethsaida, whereas actually most of his miracles were done in those places. But for John 18:2 it would have been possible to argue (from omission) that Jesus went to Gethsemane only once.
	The evidence of the Early Fathers has now boiled down to a quite unimportant residuum, if indeed it has not evaporated altogether. And the investigation has exposed the methods of textual criticism as none too dependable.

5. Style and Vocabulary

A really detailed discussion of this facet of the evidence cited against the authenticity of the twelve verses would fill half a volume. All that one can hope to accomplish here is a brief review of the question, together with a few illustrations.

It is asserted that “there are in this short passage as many as twenty-one words and phrases which do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel” (Hammond). It is suggested that this affords a plain demonstration that the twelve verses had a different author from the rest of Mark’s Gospel. Examples (the present writer has attempted to simplify this part of the discussion by eliminating direct citation of Greek phrases and – arguments based on grammatical forms):

a.	v. l1,14: the Greek word for “see” used here occurs nowhere else in Mark’s Gospel. True enough! But it is also true that the word “willing” (15:15) occurs in this place only in Mark, whilst in 25 other places Mark uses a different word for the same idea. Does this unusual circumstance cast doubt on the Marcan authenticity of chapter 15? Many examples of this kind can be cited in all the Gospels. What are they worth? Statistically, more of these than can ever be possible out of twelve verses need to be cited before a dependable case can be made.
b.	v. l1,16: the Greek word for “believeth not” is found nowhere else in Mark.
	But this same word is found only twice in Luke, and both of those occurrences are in his last chapter — for obvious reasons, when one considers that in each case it is the unbelief of disciples concerning Christ’s resurrection that is being described! So what force is there in “evidence” of this nature? Further, on investigation it turns out that Mark several times does use what is, in effect, the same word — it is only the termination that is different (apistein — apistia, ch.6:6 and 9:24; apistos, ch.9.-l 9). Consequently, if anything, this use of “believed not” supports the Marcan authorship of the twelve verses. But the traditional believer does not need such flimsy arguments to support his conclusions, as will be seen by and by.
c.	v.20: “everywhere.” This particular Greek word comes nowhere else in Mark.
	But then, neither does it occur in Matthew or John, and only once in Luke (ch.9:6). So what is to be gained by emphasizing this fact? If indeed the word were used by Matthew, Luke and John (say) half a dozen times each and nowhere else in Mark at all, the fact might begin to have significance as a criterion of style and vocabulary. But as it is, one is inclined to suspect a determination to make bricks without straw.
d.	v.9: would a writer who has already referred to Mary Magdalene in v. 1 now (in v.9) describe her somewhat belatedly for identification purposes as “Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven devils”? Does not this betray the hand of a different author?

Well, does it? Then what of the following examples?:

John 21:7? “the disciple whom Jesus loved” John 21:20: “the disciple whom Jesus loved, which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?”

The sudden elaboration of John’s description of himself is seen immediately to have point when the incident is studied carefully. Might it not be so also in Mark 16?

Again, Mark 15:40: “Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses.” Mark 15:47: “Mary the mother of Joses.” Mark 16:1: “Mary the mother of James.”

Is one to infer three different writers here within a space of ten verses? Yet no one has suggested these facts as a basis for “higher criticizing” Mark 15!

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than emphasis on the fact that the Lord’s first appearance after his resurrection was to a woman out of whom he had cast seven devils, as though to demonstrate that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound”?

If a similar attempt be made on the basis of style and phrasing to cast doubton other sections of Mark’s Gospel, astonishingly impressive results can be obtained. Burgon did it with part of Mark 1, with much gusto and derisive enjoyment. And Broadus, a Baptist scholar in America, did it with Mark 1:1 -12 and also with 15:44 -16:8. Yet it is this “vocabulary” test which is in these days regarded as “really decisive” (Weymouth).

6. What of the objection that v.9-20 involve a serious discontinuity in the narrative at v.8? The women are described as fleeing from the sepulchre in fear and confusion, and their story is left unfinished.

First, even if such were the case, it would scarcely constitute an argument against the validity of the rest of the chapter. John 21:19,20 describes how, after the meal by the sea of Galilee, Jesus bade Peter: “Follow me” Peter did so, and so too did John. But the story is never finished,. There is no indication given as to why Peter was bidden follow. Yet no critic has risen up yet to suggest that here is good reason for believing the rest of the chapter to be spurious. The fact is that a careful pondering of the incident soon supplies reason enough for the story being left incomplete. And so also, doubtless, in Mark 16 — if indeed it were permissible to consider Mark 16:1-8 as unfinished. But is it? The angels told the women (v.7): “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” This mentioned, it is characteristic of the very concise nature of the Gospel story, and especially of this close- packed summary of the resurrection in Mark 16, to assume without further mention that the fulfilment of the commission duly took place.

In the light of these considerations how convincing is the argument of the critics?

7. But is not the non-Marcan authorship of the twelve verses supported and explained by Conybeare’s Armenian manuscript attributing the verses to Aristion?

Let the facts be considered. The MS in question belongs to the ninth century — a far cry from the days of the early church. Strange that such an important fact should survive so long without a vestige of a trace of it in any of the hundreds of others MSS far more ancient, or in any of the Early Fathers also far more ancient!

But granting (for the sake of argument) the authenticity of this addition it might mean only “these verses were added on the authority of Ariston.”

But even if it does mean “Ariston wrote these 12 verses,” there is still the identity of Ariston with Aristion to be assumed before identification with Aristion (the first century disciple of the Lord mentioned by Papias) can be claimed.

There are too many uncertainties about this theory of alternative authorship to be convincing. By contrast with it Burgon’s suggestion of the origin of the problem (to be summarized by and by) is so very simple and carries such an obvious degree of probability that one marvels that anyone should look for or prefer an alternative theory so ill- supported by evidence.

The Evidence in Favour

So far this study has necessarily consisted of a patient investigation of all the reasons that have been advanced for disbelieving in the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark.

Over against this must now be set a summary of the evidence in favour of accepting the twelve verses. Though this can be quickly stated, it is impressive by its vastness.

1.	Apart from the handful that has been mentioned, every single manuscript of the Gospels, whether uncial or cursive, includes the twelve verses.
2.	The ancient Versions are equally emphatic. The various Syriac Versions, all the Old Latin MSS (except one), the Memphitic and Thebaic Versions of Egypt, the Vulgate of Jerome, the Gothic Version – all of these, going back to the fourth century (or much earlier in the case of some) testify to the general acceptance of Mark 16:9-20 by widely separated branches of the early church.
3.	The evidence of the Early Fathers goes back (in many instances) much further than any of the MSS, and here again – apart from the doubtful exception of Eusebius — the testimony is unanimous. In the 1st Century, Hermas and Papias quote from the twelve verses. In the 2nd Century Justin Martyr and Irenaeus do likewise. Then come in quick succession famous names such as Hypolytus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria. Besides these there is the weighty opinion of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 256), expressing the conviction of the early church of N. Africa. Add also the evidence of the so-called Acts of Pilate and the very early Apostolic Constitutions, and it can be seen that even if there were little supporting evidence from the MSS, the case in favour of the authenticity of the twelve verses would still be remarkably strong. It becomes evident from the cataloguing of so much testimony that the reader may set doubts at rest. Mark ] 6:9-20 was part of the Gospel of Mark from the earliest times.

The Origin of the Problem

Not only did Burgon do some magnificently thorough work in sorting out the facts concerning this question. He also put his finger on an extremely simple and likely reason why a small minority of manuscripts came to omit v.9-20.

To make this plain it is necessary first to explain some of the characteristics of early church lectionaries.

From very early days the church had a system of regular Bible readings. The “Bible Companion” is new (comparatively) only in name. The idea can be traced back definitely to the fourth century and with a high degree of probability to the second or even earlier. In fact, just as the early church inherited many of its forms and practices from the synagogue, so also was this lectionary system a copy of Jewish observance. To this day the Jews have a pattern of Old Testament readings in the synagogue which many scholars consider to have come down from very ancient days, so that it becomes possible to make probable inferences as to the time of the year when Jesus read Isaiah 61 in the synagogue at Nazareth and the time of year of Paul’s preaching in the synagogue at Antioch.

But of course this early church lectionary did not follow chapter divisions, for such did not exist then. The daily readings were usually marked off in official church copies in red ink, but also in other ways.

This lectionary system was also responsible for various minor modifications (and some of them not minor) creeping into the manuscripts. Four interesting examples of this might be mentioned here.

a.	A reading was sometimes introduced by the addition of the simple explanatory phrase: “And Jesus said.” The present writer has more than once heard similar improvisations added to the public reading of Scripture. An example of this which has crept into the text of the King James Version is to be found in Luke 7:31, where the RV correctly omits: “And the Lord said.”
b.	“It was customary in the reading for the day before Good Friday to include Luke 22:43,44 (about the angel and the agony in Gethsemane) after Matthew 26:39, and to omit it from Luke 22 on a later occasion. Influenced by this practice the Vatican MS omits Luke 22:43,44 from the proper place and has in turn influenced the Revisers to include a quite unwarranted note of warning in the margin there.
c.	It was likewise customary to include John 1 9:34 (about the piercing of the side of Jesus) after Matthew 27:49. Here again the Vatican Codex is at fault and has again become the chief ground for an unjustifiable addition in the RV margin.
d.	The early lectionaries prescribed the reading of John 7:37-8:12 for Whit Sunday with the omission of 7:53 — 8:11 (the woman taken in adultery). This omission from the reading led to the practice of leaving out 7:53 — 8:11 from official copies, and thus became the origin of modern doubts about that section.

With his usual acuteness Burgon observed that Mark 16:8 was the end of a recognized “reading,” according to the early lectionary system, for Easter and Ascension Day. Further, he noted that it was frequently the practice to mark out the “readings” by writing “beginning” (arche) and “the end” (to telos) in the margin at the appropriate places. Indeed he was able to draw attention to one place in the famous Codex Beza where “to telos” had crept into the text at the end of a lection (Mark 14:41) so as to make utter nonsense of the passage. The Freer MS of the Gospels in Washington has it as well.

Next, examination of many manuscripts revealed the fact that a large number of them have “the end” written in the margin at Mark 16:8. The significance of this addition is, of course, quite simply that Mark 16:8 ends one of the daily readings. But how easy it would be for a not over-intelligent copyist to take “the end” as meaning “the end of the Gospel,” and so omit the remaining verses!

This, then, is Burgon’s conjecture, well supported by facts, as to the origin of the doubts concerning the last twelve verses. It is a suggestion altogether more plausible than the utterly unsupported speculations that the autograph of Mark’s Gospel lost its last leaf before ever a copy of it could be made, or that Mark died suddenly just before completing his task.

But whether Burgon’s explanation of the omission be accepted or not, the preceding review of the factual evidence pro and con relating to Mark 16:9-20 will surely leave little doubt in the minds of those who have followed it through with any degree of carefulness.

Mary, who had followed Peter and John back to the tomb, still lingered disconsolately there after the two apostles had gone away. There was no reason at all why she should, except that this was the spot where she had last set eyes on her Saviour. In the past two days she had shed tears as never before, and now, more than ever, they refused to be restrained. If only her love and deep loss might express themselves in some practical act of service and solicitude, if only she might have the opportunity to lavish all her devotion on his poor crucified body! But now that her Lord had been mysteriously removed, even this crumb of comfort was denied her.

Could it be that Joseph of Arimathea had decided, for some reason which she was unable to guess, that it would be better to have Jesus interred elsewhere? But then, in that case he would hardly have acted with such unseemly haste, nor would he have taken such a step without consulting or at least informing the disciples.

Unable to make any sense of the situation, she wept the more. Then it suddenly dawned on her that as yet she had not seen for herself. Was there anything to be learned from a closer examination of the sepulchre? So, as the apostles had done, she also stooped to peer within — and immediately saw two men sitting there, as though at the head and feet of Jesus. But there was no Jesus!

Perhaps she was greatly startled to see these men, and showing it, was quickly reassured by them. But there is no sign of this in the narrative. More likely she assumed without surprise that these were two of Joseph’s men. Only in later days did she, and John also, see the wondrous significance of two angels sitting in this dark Holy of Holies and between them the stain of blood shed to take away the sin of the world. In the temple on Mount Zion no ark of God’s covenant, no over-arching cherubim of gold, sanctified the sanctuary as the place where sin was put away. Instead, here in this lonely spot, witnessed by only one worshipper (and she blinded by tears and imperfect knowledge), was the true Mercy-seat. Within a matter of minutes Mary was to understand it all.

Dramatic encounter

“Woman, why weepest thou?” Why indeed? “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” Yet she would have had much greater cause for weeping had she found Jesus lying there!

Even as she spoke, she turned away again. Was it because she assumed that they could not help her, for they would surely have given her news immediately, if they had news to communicate? Or was it because the two men in the tomb stood to greet one whom they could see behind Mary? The Greek text seems to imply a sound of footsteps behind her.

There came a dramatic change. Staring into the rising sun she was able to see only the outline of the stranger who now drew near. This, for certain, must be Joseph himself. He would be able to help her. And all her love and anxiety were poured out in one intense irrational plea: “Sir” — the word is really Lord;’ imagine it addressed to a gardener! But how appropriate for the garden’s owner (and this is a possible reading),-“If thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” As though she could — a weak woman, and single-handed!

Alternatively this part of the resurrection narrative should be interpreted differently. “Woman, why weepest thou?” Why did Mary not recognize the voice? Perhaps her instinctive recognition was expressed in the word “Lord” — but then ‘common-sense’ re-asserted itself: ‘Of course, it is not Jesus speaking to me. It cannot be!’ Her mind would move quickly to the only alternative — he must be the gardener. It would seem that Mary expected nothing of help or comfort in response to her appeal, for she was already moving away when one more spoken word arrested her. The Good Shepherd calls his own sheep by name (Jn. 10:3,4). She turned again, stared incredulously, and then in a moment was at his side, grasping his hand and feeling his arm and shoulder for the reassurance by which to turn the impossible into certainty, and all the while incoherent with gladness. (Or did she prostrate herself before him, holding his feet? cp. Mt. 28:9). There was nothing she could say except one exultant word of greeting and of self-reproach: “Rabboni!” The bourn from which no traveller returns’ had yielded back the one whom she longed to see above all other, and how blind her eyes had been not to recognize the fact. Instinctively and appropriately, she used the title which Bartimaeus had bestowed on Jesus in the day when his blindness was taken away (Mark 10:51). A wild welter of glad emotions jostled for supremacy in her mind, and all the while she sought to make assurance doubly sure by the renewed evidence of her own senses.

It became needful to restrain her. “Do not keep on touching me” he said —and with reluctance, one may be sure, for he too was unspeakably glad to be once again with so loyal a friend. Yet, precious as the moment was for both of them, he could not stay longer. “Do not keep on touching me for I am not yet ascended to my father.”

The words have often been read as the equivalent of: ‘Keep away, I am not to be touched. The uncleanness of death is still upon me. I am still as mortal as you are — I have not yet ascended to tht; divine nature of immortality.’ It cannot be too strongly stressed that there is no Bible evidence whatever for such an interpretation. But there are several serious difficulties in its way:

1. The Greek continuous imperative implies definitely that he was being touched.
2. Suppose the Lord were still in a mortal condition, why should he not be touched? In his mortality before crucifixion people had touched him often enough.
3. There is no Bible evidence that “ascended to the father” signified a change of physical nature.
4. The normal meaning of the word is that of “go up to the temple,” “go up to Jerusalem,” “ascend to heaven” (John 7:14; 5:1: 1:51).

So this interpretation, so often given uncritical acceptance, is only to be received if there is no other available.

On the other hand, to take “I ascend to my Father and your father” as having reference to the ascension from the mount of Olives forty days later, is to reduce the words of Jesus to incoherence: ‘Do not touch me because I have not yet gone to heaven, but go and tell the disciples that I shall do so in six weeks time.’

Neither does this satisfy.

Ascension

The only alternative seems to be this: Jesus was speaking of an ascension to the father which must and did happen at that very time.

There is something singularly appropriate about this idea. In the sacrifices under the Law, the evidence of the slaying of the animal was always brought into the presence of God — blood at the foot of the altar, or blood smeared on the horns of the altar of incense, or (in the case of the most important sacrifice of all) blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies. In that sacrifice which all these foreshadowed must there not be something which corresponded to this vital feature? And how else could this happen in the experience of Christ except by his appearing in the presence of the Father with the tokens of his sacrificial death evident in pierced hands and side?

The typology of the Passover ritual is specially instructive here. The Law prescribed that on “the morrow after the (Passover) sabbath — i.e. on the morning Christ rose — there must be offered a wave-sheaf of barley, without leaven: “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 1 5:20,23). With this there was also offered “an he-lamb without blemish of the first year, for a burnt-offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 23:1 2). Here was the Passover lamb come into life again, so to speak, and re-consecrated to the service of God.

Normally these offerings were presented in the temple at the time of the morning sacrifice — the very time when Jesus appeared to Mary in the garden. Hence the urgent words, implying: ‘Do not detain me here, for a higher duty calls me. But go and tell my brethren. This will explain to them why they do not see me through the rest of this day.’

Other Scriptures conform to this interpretation “The Lord hath said unto me (the Messiah), Thou ar» my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Hebrews 5:5 applies this Scripture to the glorifying of Cnrist “to be made an high priest,” thus pointedly referring the words to the resurrection — and not the birth or baptism —of Jesus). When, it may be asked, did God make this declaration to His Son on “this day,’ except at this “ascension to the Father”?

Again, it was appointed in the ordinance for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:6) that, before the blood of the sin-offering on behalf of the people be brought into the Holy of Holies, Aaron must first go into the Sanctuary to “offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself alone.”

Also the experience of Hezekiah — one of the most outstanding types of Messiah in the Bible— must surely have its counterpart in the greater work of Christ: “Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy Father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 20:5).

Although not actually seeing their risen Master until near the end of this day of tantalizing uncertainty, the disciples were to be reassured, if they were willing to be, by the intimate nature of the message which Mary brought: “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Yet even as these words emphasized the close kinship to subsist henceforth between Father and Son and brethren, they also maintained a distinction. Jesus did not speak of “our Father.” for his own relationship to the Almighty was necessarily far more intimate than it could possibly be as yet for his disciples.

Would that expression “my brethren” remind them again of the words of Psalm 22 which had been repeatedly forced upon their minds throughout the day of his crucifixion: “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” — and the name of God which he declared unto them was “Father.” The psalm, if recalled, would also carry a strong assurance that, even though long slow hours would pass that day and he be still absent from them, he would yet come among them, declaring the Father’s name “in the midst of the congregation.”

Mary would fain have lingered there, convincing herself, again and again, that her Lord was truly risen, but he himself was taking leave of her. Ana had he not given her a commission to fulfil? No messenger ever had more joyful news to impart. So again she went away as fast as she could go to find Peter and John once more, again to gasp out excitedly the news of an empty tomb, but this time with the true heart-warming explanation to impart solidity to the new-born faith of John and to kindle a spark of hope in the mind of a puzzled wretched Peter.

NOTES: John 20:11-18

11.	And: in Gk. text therefore, to be linked with v. 13 because
12.	Sifting: “They sit m the empty tomb who stand in the presence of God; Lk. 1:19.
13.	Why weepest thou? There would have been good cause for weeping if the tomb were not empty
14.	She turned herself back Any link here with Gen. 22.13? See also John 1:27, 29
	And saw Jesus The Lord’s first appearance was not to his mother.
	Why these remarkable resemblances? Jesus standing (Rev 5:6); Mary weeping (Rev. 5:4); she turned herself (Rev. 1:10,12).
15.	Whom seekest thou? Whom? not What? Then did Mary hope that Jesus would rise? Here, questions lead to a confession of faith; in Gen. 3:9,11,13, to a confession of sin
	Supposing, NT. usage; fairly sure.
	The gardener This second Adam in this garden is a “gardener” (Gen 2:15)
16.	Rabboni; normally used for an outstanding teacher Jesus was certainly that now, by his very appearance, and more so, by v. 17
17.	Touch me not In nearly all NT occurrences, the word means “touch”. But the parallel to Mt 8:15 in Mk. 1:31 definitely means “hold” or “grip”; and this is the usual meaning in classical Greek (L. & S.). Perhaps also in Lk 7:14; 1 Jn. 5:18. The imperfect tense requires the idea just mentioned.
	Do not keep holding me. The alternative explanation that the uncleanness of death was still on Jesus cannot be sustained.
	My brethren. Jesus brought this term into use after his resurrection: Ps. 22:22; 1 22:8; Mt. 28:10; 25:40; Rom. 8:29; Jn. 21:23; Acts -frequently. Heb. 2:11.
	I ascend; 16:16,28.
	My God Spoken after resurrection, these words veto trinitarian doctrine. Compare also Eph. 1:17; Heb. 1:9; Rev. 1:6; ch.3:2,12; Mt. 27:46.
18.	I have seen: Gk. pf. tense implies: And what I saw is still vivid in my mind. So also v.25,29; Lk. 24:23. John’s Greek splendidly represents Mary’s disjointed speech.